Case Alert - [2017] EWCA Civ 1872

Court of Appeal orders security for costs where ATE insurance policy did not contain an anti-avoidance provision

First published in the International Arbitration 1/3LY, Issue 7

Insolvency law contains summary processes for dealing with claims and protections against certain proceedings commencing or continuing. There has been some debate, and recent case law, concerning the primacy of these rules over agreements to arbitrate. In the following article, we look at what the current position is under English law and beyond.

General position under English law

In April 2015, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal bought by The Trustees of the Olympic Airlines SA Pension and Life Assurance Scheme ("the Scheme") and held that Olympic Airlines SA ("Olympic Airlines") did not have an "establishment" in the UK when the Trustees presented a winding up petition in England on 20 July 2010.

The significance of the decision is that without a "qualifying insolvency event", the Scheme would not enter the Pension Protection Fund ("PPF") and is of significance for any defined benefit pension scheme of a UK branch office of an overseas company.

Introduction

Court of Appeal sets out test for whether defendant has assets for a freezing order application and considers the impact of delay in applying

FI and D&O Since our last update, there have been significant developments in the FI and D&O landscape. November saw the first ever UK deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) announced between the SFO and Standard Bank. The DPA process has been available but unused since 2014 so the judgment and the SFO’s comments thereafter provided some much needed guidance on what the process involved. Significantly, weight was placed on Standard Bank’s early self-reporting and cooperation.

In addition to the general insolvency measures found in the Insolvency Act 1986, insurance intermediaries are subject to specific client money rules, which have a particular effect if they become insolvent. Though in the context of investment firms rather than the insurance sector, the recent UK Supreme Court case of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in administration) v CRC Credit Fund and ors [2012] UKSC 6 (LBIE) is a useful decision against which to consider the application of many of these client money rules.

If you’re pursuing assets in England relevant to a non-European bankruptcy or insolvency, you can’t rely on a (default) foreign judgment and must instead bring fresh proceedings in the English courts

The UK Supreme Court, which is the UK's highest court, has handed down its long-awaited decision in Belmont Park Investments Pty Limited v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited and Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc [2011] UKSC 38, in which the Court considered the validity and enforceability of so-called "flip" clauses under English bankruptcy law.

The Corporations Act 2001 sets out a regime for the order in which certain debts and claims are to be paid in priority to unsecured creditors.

That's straightforward enough for a liquidator, right?

Unfortunately, matters are not that straightforward. In effect, there are two priority regimes under the Act for the preferential payments of particular creditors, each of which applies to a different "fund", and we've observed this has led to some liquidators being unsure of how to proceed – or even worse, using funds they should not.