The Financial Times has reported that Towergate, a loss making insurance broker with debts of up to £1bn, may be about to breach the terms of its loans. According to these reports, a paymentis due to Towergate’s secured creditors on Monday, 2nd February 2015, and another is due to its unsecured creditors two weeks later. These payments are reported to be worth about £30m. Towergate’s board is said to be weighing up rival restructuring bids this weekend, in an effort to save the business.
Protecting your business from your customer’s insolvency
In the second article in our series on risk and opportunity in the fashion retail sector, Rob Russell and Peter Manley assess one of the most prominent areas of risk for suppliers − the insolvency of a trade customer/ retailer.
On 15 January 2015, it was announced that the bankruptcy creditor petition limit will be increased from £750 to £5,000 following a consultation into insolvency proceedings.
Business Minister, Jo Swinson said:
In Graves v Capital Home Loans Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1297, it was held that the appointment of Law of Property Act Receivers by a mortgagee because the borrower lacked the mental capacity to manage his financial affairs was valid even if the borrower was mentally fit by the time of the appointment. It was further held that the treatment of the borrower by the lender in such circumstances did not give rise to an unfair relationship under ss 140A and 140B of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA 1974).
Background
In Spencer Day v Tiuta International Ltd and other [2014] EWCA Civ 1246, the Court held that a creditor who relies on subrogation is still a secured creditor, and therefore cannot be subject to a set off claim for unliquidated damages as per Natwest v Skelton (1993).
Background
Restructuring & Insolvency
United Kingdom
Recovery and Resolution of Central Clearing Counterparties: AIMA’s Proposals
Re Christophorus 3 Limited [2014] EWHC 1162 (Ch)
There has been recent high-level review of the application of the doctrine of ex turpi causa to claims involving fraudulent directors, in the context of insolvency litigation. The doctrine defined at its simplest is that no action can be founded on illegal or immoral conduct – a legal form of fair play. In October 2014 the Supreme Court heard the appeal in Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Limited (Bilta).
Key point
Claimants should ensure that in foreign as well as UK insolvency procedures their claims are protected against limitation defences.
Facts
In this two part guide we will be looking at issues that frequently arise when considering whether a professional indemnity policy responds to a claim against a construction professional.
In Part 1 we consider whether there is cover. In particular:
- Prior claims – when will a “new” claim fall within an existing notification?
- The obligation to notify circumstances
- Aggregation
- Insolvency of the Insured
Prior claims