INSURANCE AND REINSURANCE DISPUTES

2020 REVIEW

The contents of this publication are for reference purposes only. They do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Specific legal advice about your specific circumstances should always be sought separately before taking any action based on this publication.

INSURANCE AND REINSURANCE DISPUTES 2020 REVIEW

Contents

Preface

In this edition, now in its 7th year, we review the trends and developments in M&A across a wide range of countries and territories in the Asia Pacific region throughout 2019, and discuss our thoughts on the anticipated market trends for 2020 and beyond.

Asia Pacific M&A in 2019

Key themes across the 2019 Asia Pacific market include:

EU (Withdrawal) Bill may be passed by UK Parliament. Its purpose is to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 and, so far as possible, import EU law that would otherwise fall away into UK law

The Construction (Retention Deposit Schemes) Bill is expected to have its second reading debate

Today the Queensland Supreme Court confirmed that the liquidators of an insolvent company are ‘executive officers’ of that company under Queensland’s environmental laws, which means that the liquidators are required to use available funds to cause the company to comply with its environmental obligations under an environmental protection order issued to Linc.

Today the Queensland Supreme Court held that an insolvent company’s environmental obligations under State law were unaffected by the liquidators’ disclaimer of related property and resource tenures. This decision changes the previous understanding of liquidators’ powers and the order of priority in which claims will be paid in a liquidation, and may have broader implications for insolvent companies that are subject to obligations under State laws.

UK REIT Horizon Scanner Q4 2021

UK REIT Horizon Scanner Q4 2021

Key Issues

Key issues coming up for UK Main Market REITs in corporate, financial regulatory, planning, real estate, securities law and regulation and tax1 in England (including retained EU law2).

Issue/status/timing: New developments since our March 2021 edition are shown in green text. Impact: urgency/impact rating for REITs admitted to London Stock Exchange Main Market (including the Specialist Fund Segment3)

This was a Court of Appeal decision which focused on s423 Insolvency Act 1986, as well as the ambit of directors' duties to creditors in a distressed company scenario. The below summary relates to the courts' analysis of the latter issue.

Facts

Appleton Papers Inc (API) was a wholly owned subsidiary of BAT Industries plc (BAT).

Since our last update in October 2019, there have been many interesting developments in the area of environmental law. The COVID-19 pandemic, reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, and climate change were key topics that shaped judicial, legislative, and policy changes in British Columbia and across Canada. With respect to judicial developments, disputes over natural resource projects, contaminated sites, environmental prosecutions, as well as judicial review or appeal decisions arising from environmental regulatory bodies, brought many changes to the landscape of environmental law.

In the recent decision of British Columbia Attorney General v Quinsam Coal Corporation, 2020 BCSC 640 (Quinsam), the British Columbia Supreme Court (the Court) considered the priority between a debtor’s environmental liabilities and a secured creditor. In its analysis, the Court extensively discussed the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Orphan Well Association v Grant Thornton Ltd, 2019 SCC 5 (Redwater). In reference to Redwater, the Court posed the following question:

On January 31, 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Orphan Well Association v. Grant Thornton Ltd., popularly known as Redwater. In a 5-2 split decision, a majority of the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and held that the Alberta Energy Regulator’s (AER/Regulator) assertion of its statutory enforcement powers over an insolvent licensee’s assets does not create a conflict with the federal Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) as to trigger the constitutional doctrine of federal paramountcy.