The Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 (the “2010 Act”) came into force on 1 August 2016 and replaced the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930 (the “1930 Act”).

The previous 1930 Act had enabled a third party to bring a claim directly against an insurer where the insured had become insolvent, however a claimant had to (i) restore a dissolved company to the register of companies and obtain the leave of the court to allow proceedings to be commenced; (ii) obtain judgment against the insured; and (iii) commence separate proceedings against the insurer.

The Supreme Court decision in BTI v Sequana provided the first opportunity for the UK Supreme Court to address the duty of company directors to consider the interests of a company’s creditors when the company becomes insolvent or when it approaches or is at real risk of insolvency. Natalie Osafo and Francesca Bugg examine the decision and its implications for company directors.

Having experienced first-hand HMRC’s attempts to combat serious tax losses, one of the features of tax litigation over the last 15 years has been the prevalence of so-called ‘Kittel’ cases. These are cases in which HMRC seeks to deny repayments of VAT to companies buying goods in circumstances where HMRC has identified a fraud further up the supply chain, often many companies distant. They can involve significant amounts of VAT and form a substantial pillar of HMRC’s compliance strategy.

It is five years since the tragic Grenfell disaster but defective cladding/dangerous living conditions and fire safety are still very much hot news. But, you may be asking, why is this relevant to insolvency practitioners?

1.1 Are there international treaties and/or cross-border instruments applicable?

In its decision in Shailesh Verma, Resolution Professional of Lavasa Corporation Limited vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, a 3 (three)member bench of the Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) has held that continuation of electricity supply to a corporate debtor during the subsistence of the corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) is subject to payment for such supply.

Brief Facts

Four years after New York grocery chain Tops’ exit from Chapter 11, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Drain ruled that the Tops’ Chapter 11 trustee may proceed with litigation against certain private equity investors. The trustee alleged that the investors drove the company into bankruptcy by paying themselves more than $375 million in dividends while neglecting to address Tops’ unfunded pension liabilities.

The Supreme Court of Israel recently clarified the distinction between fixed and floating charges under Israeli law. While the decision of the Supreme Court did not specifically address charges on intellectual property, the tests set forth by the Supreme Court will likely affect the characterization of charges on such intangible assets under Israeli law. This decision takes on additional importance in the current economic climate, which may see more IP-rich companies in insolvency situations or looking to use their intellectual property assets to secure financing.

Contents:

In recent years, Indonesian companies have shown both a greater willingness to use foreign restructuring processes, as well as a greater need to do so given the increasingly sophisticated financing structures and investor bases seen for Indonesian businesses. Some of the notable Chapter 15 protection cases include those involving the Duniatex Group in 2020, PT Bakrie Telecom Tbk in 2018, PT Bumi Resources Tbk in 2017, and Berau Capital Resources Pte Ltd (a Singapore SPV of PT Berau Coal Energy Tbk) in 2015.