Following up on our previous blog on Lord Glennie's controversial decision in the Scottish Lion solvent scheme of arrangement we can now report that last week the scheme was formally dismissed.
The insolvency of UK insurance companies is, fortunately, a fairly rare event. Even in the current difficult times - and despite speculation about the solvency of some insurers - we have yet to see a UK insurance company actually go into liquidation.
The FSMT has handed down its decision in the case of Asgar Ali Ravjani (trading as Astrad Finance) v Financial Services Authority, which involved the failure to disclose a discharged bankruptcy to the FSA.
When a person is unable to pursue a claim against someone who has been made bankrupt on account of the bankruptcy having been discharged, it may still be possible to pursue the claim against the bankrupt’s insurers, following a recent ruling.
The case involved 12 claims for breach of trust against nine solicitors and a Mr Dixit Shah. It was brought by the Law Society and 19 of the various clients of the solicitors.
The case of Law Society v Dixit Shah (2007) EWHC 2841 (Ch) arose from the intervention of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors into an association of firms owned by Dixit Shah which traded under "the BJ Brandon Group" name. The Law Society alleged that the OSS discovered that around £12.5 million of client money had been misappropriated by Mr Shah.
Several tort claims were made against T & N Limited (“the Insured”) arising out of its use of asbestos. As a consequence it became unlikely to be able to pay its debts. Administrators were appointed for the purposes of approving a scheme of arrangement under section 425 of the Companies Act 1985.
Several tort claims were made against T & N Limited (“the Insured”) arising out of its use of asbestos. As a consequence it became unlikely to be able to pay its debts. Administrators were appointed for the purposes of approving a scheme of arrangement under section 425 of the Companies Act 1985.
Freakley v Centre Reinsurance International Company & Ors [2006] UKHL 45
This case concerns whether a claim to reimbursement of claims-handling expenses should have priority over other creditors on insolvency of the insured.
In 2017, in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court,1 the Supreme Court of the United States held that, in federal cases involving multiple plaintiffs, each plaintiff must establish that the court has personal jurisdiction over each of its claims.2 This severely limited the forums where plaintiffs could bring multiple-plaintiff cases against defendants.
The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), a roughly $2 trillion coronavirus response bill signed into law yesterday, is intended to provide widespread emergency relief for Americans and the country’s economy. In addition to its benefits for individuals, the bill provides aid for small businesses, large corporations, hospitals and public health agencies, and state and local governments.