In Peel Port Shareholder Finance Co Ltd v Dornoch Ltd [2017] EWHC 876 (TCC), Peel Port Shareholder Finance Co Ltd (Peel Port) applied for pre-action disclosure of the defendant's insurance policy under Civil Procedure Rule 31.16. Peel Port was not able to rely on the provisions in Third Party (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 because the defendant was not insolvent. Peel Port argued that it was highly probable that rights against insurers would be transferred to them under the 2010 Act in due course.

When we began analysing in depth the possibility of Britain exiting the European Union, 18 months prior to the June 2016 referendum, the HERBERT businessSMITH FREEHILLS consensus w07as very muchSECTION TITLE that Brexit was a remote prospect that either would never happen or not matter.

Fast forward just over two years and the reality could not be more different. In this updated edition of our Brexit legal guide, we take stock of the present situation, summarising the key developments since last year's vote and what is to be expected in the months ahead. 10 33 99

If 2016 ended with more questions than answers as to how Brexit would take shape, 2017 began with at least a little more clarity.

2017 will see major changes to the UK legal landscape, with Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union expected to be triggered by the end of March 2017 to begin the Brexit process. The legal implications of Brexit will be hugely significant; preparing for their impact will be a substantial challenge across every industry sector. Our Preview of 2017 outlines these implications, as well as identifying other trends and issues we expect to be on the legal agenda this year.

For more information, please contact the relevant Herbert Smith Freehills partner referred to in the contact list or Simone Pearlman, head of legal knowledge on +44 (0) 20 7466 2021 or email simone. [email protected] This is a guide to key legal developments in the coming months and years ahead (UK perspective).

In a recent judgment on directors’ liability (Bundesgerichtshof, 18 November 2020, IV ZR 217/19), the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) has clarified the scope of D&O insurance coverage, holding that company directors are entitled to its protection.

Background

Key Points

• Insurers had no priority rights to collect premiums over the proceeds of a successful action they had insured, as a result of a drafting error.

• The High Court affirmed the general rule that, where a party has contracted for an unsecured right only, the court will not elevate it to a secured status.

The Facts 

German insolvency proceedings expose company directors to high risks of personal liability. Claims brought on the basis of sec. 92(2), 93(3) German Companies Act (Aktiengesetz, AktG) and sec. 64 German Limited Liability Companies Act can have disastrous financial consequences. Damages can be in the millions. Therefore many company directors purchase directors’ and officers’ liability insurances (D&O insurance) to protect their personal assets.

The plaintiffs in the underlying action, Art and Wendy Douglas, owned property in Kingston where there was an oil leak in January of 2008. The defendants, who had supplied the oil, sent an environmental clean-up company to remediate the property after being alerted of the leak. The plaintiffs' insurer, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (the "Insurer"), ultimately indemnified the plaintiffs in full and paid for repairs, remediation, additional living expenses of Mr. Douglas, personal property and related damages totaling more than $800,000.

On April 30th, the FDIC issued a final rule that treats a mutual insurance holding company as an insurance company for purposes of Section 203(e) of the Dodd-Frank Act. The new rule clarifies that the liquidation and rehabilitation of a covered financial company that is a mutual insurance holding company will be conducted in the same manner as an insurance company.