Most trading contracts contain specific terms setting out the consequences of a counterparty insolvency or other default. This article explores whether, and in what circumstances, it may be sensible to invoke rights under such clauses or whether it can be better to adopt a more “wait and see” attitude. We also look at drafting options prior to finalising contract terms.

When considering how to respond to a counterparty event of default (EOD), relevant considerations will include potential consequences:

On 17 June 2016, the First-tier Tribunal (in Farnborough Airport Properties Ltd v HMRC²) held that the appointment of a receiver over a (would-be surrendering) group company meant that “arrangements” were in place for the company to no longer be under the same “control” as would-be claimant group companies.

Over the past few months, we have commented on the steel industry crisis and some of the employment law issues arising from it in the context of insolvency.

New insolvency fees and deposits introduced on 21 July 2016

From 21 July 2016, insolvency fees for bankruptcy and company insolvency are set to change. This is the outcome from the funding review the Insolvency Service has undertaken with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and HM Treasury and is to come into force in the shape of The Insolvency Proceedings (Fees) Order 2016 (SI 2016/692).

The UK Commercial Court has dismissed the Claimant's application for a stay under Article 28 of the Judgments Regulation.

The Court of Appeal has now confirmed that a bankrupt’s undrawn pension entitlement does not fall to be included within the assessment of his income “to which he from time to time becomes entitled” for the purposes of an income payments order application (IPO) pursuant to section 310 of the Insolvency Act IA86. Horton v Henry [2016] EWCA Civ 989.

Prior to 1930 if an insured person/company (insured) incurred a liability to a third party (TP) but then became bankrupt/passed into liquidation any monies paid out under the insurance policy was paid to the Trustee/Liquidator for the benefit of ALL creditors.

The Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930 (1930 Act) transferred the insured’s rights against the insurer under certain circumstances to the TP who could pursue the insurer against the policy proceeds once the insured’s liability was established. So the policy proceeds may benefit the TP and not all creditors.

Lenders contemplating potential claims against insurers of insolvent professionals will welcome the fact that the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 (2010 Act) is to finally come into force from 1 August 2016, having been updated by the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Regulations 2016.

Significant changes have taken effect and are expected to continue within the education sector, the result of which may lead to an increase in restructuring activity and additional pressure on funding streams.

The Third Party (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 (the “2010 Act”) finally comes into force on 1 August 2016.

The 2010 Act makes it easier for a third party to bring a claim against an insurer when the insured party has become insolvent. The 2010 Act will replace the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930 (the “1930 Act”) and is designed to extend and improve the rights of third party claimants.