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.

On 25 May, the Insolvency Service published a consultation paper on options for reform of the UK's corporate insolvency regime. Their impetus is for the UK to remain at the forefront of insolvency best practice to ensure businesses, investors and creditors remain confident that best outcomes can be achieved when faced with financial difficulty, and to give a company the best possible chance to restructure its debts and return to profitability while protecting employees and creditors.

Shlosberg v Avonwick Holdings Ltd & Ors [2016] EWHC 1001

Law firm Dechert LLP has been ordered to cease acting for the principal creditor of bankrupt Russian businessman, Mr Shlosberg, because it also acted for the trustees in bankruptcy, and accordingly had had access to documents subject to Mr Shlosberg's legal professional privilege.

Facts

This briefing is the first in a series of 3 briefings about the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 which we will be publishing over the next fortnight.

The pros and cons every claims professional needs to know – part 1

Litigation

Lender not obliged to advise borrower about onerous term

In Finch and another v Lloyds TSB Bank Plc and others,  the High Court considered whether a lender had a duty to advise a borrower about a clause in its loan agreement making it liable for the bank's hedging break costs if the borrower chose to repay a fixed rate loan early.

Key points

• Court does not have jurisdiction to direct detailed assessment of fees agreed by administrators on application of liquidator
• Administrators can agree solicitors’ fees for work carried out during the administration after they cease holding office
• The court has no inherent jurisdiction to direct a detailed assessment

The facts

Key points

• There have been conflicting decisions on whether a person may be made the subject of any income payments order (IPO)
• This case suggests that the court will not make an IPO in respect of unelected pension entitlements

The facts

The facts

Facts 

The respondents applied to set aside an order permitting the liquidators to serve the ‘Main Application’ on the respondents out of the jurisdiction (‘Set Aside Application’). Grounds of the application were: (i) the liquidators could not establish a serious issue to be tried/ reasonable prospect of success on the Main Application; and (ii) the initial without notice application had been procured by misrepresentation and/or material non-disclosure.