With the Insurance Act 2015 receiving Royal Assent on 12 February 2015, we take a look at the consequential amendments to the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 (the “2010 Act”). These amendments were aimed at rectifying the failure to include certain insolvency circumstances in the original 2010 Act (which due to these defects was not brought into force after Royal Assent) and it is hoped that the act may finally come into effect by autumn 2015.

Background

In the recent decision of Horton v Henry [2014] EWHC 4209 (Ch) the High Court held that a Bankrupt’s unexercised rights to draw his pension did not represent income to which the Bankrupt was entitled within the meaning of section 310(7) of the Insolvency Act 1986 and so refused to make an Income Payments Order. This contradicted the controversial decision in Raithatha v Williamson [2012] EWHC 909 (Ch) and has created uncertainty as to which is the correct position. The Horton case is being appealed.

We welcome the Government’s announcement today that the insolvency exemption to the Jackson reforms will remain in place for the foreseeable future, although it will be reviewed later in the year.

Following the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Act 2012, success fees under “No Win, No Fee” conditional fee agreements are generally no longer recoverable from opponents and neither are premiums under after the event (ATE) legal expenses insurance policies.

Congratulations to all those who lobbied government to extend the carve out for insolvency from the restrictions imposed by the Jackson Reforms. We have just received confirmation from the Ministry of Justice that the exemption granted to Insolvency Practitioners has been extended indefinitely.

A real shot in the arm for Insolvency Litigators across the UK.

House of Commons: Written Statement (HCWS303)

Ministry of Justice

The Government has, today, announced that the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Act 2012 reforms for insolvency proceedings are being delayed for the time being, and will therefore not come into force on 1 April 2015.

Mr and Mrs D (the “Second and Third Defendants”) owned and controlled Stoke Place Hotel Ltd (the First Defendant) and were also major shareholders of DHL (a hotel company) which went into administration in September 2012 (the “Administration”).

Valuation Valuation issues tend to be at the heart of any intercreditor dispute in a restructuring. And the art of valuation becomes absolutely critical in the context of a scheme, because creditors with no economic interest need not be invited to vote on a scheme which seeks to compromise creditor claims1 .

The government has indicated that it will raise the financial threshold for creditors petitioning for an individual's bankruptcy through an amendment to the Insolvency Act 1986. From 1 October 2015 a creditor will need to be owed at least £5,000, rather than £750 as at present. This change, coming very shortly after the recent abolition of the remedy of distress, will inevitably serve to further limit landlords' armouries when attempting to recover arrears from tenants.

The UK is to ratify the Cape Town Convention and its Aircraft Protocol (together, Cape Town). This may help UK aircraft operators access cheaper capital markets funding. But that cheaper funding may require the UK, in effect, to adopt Cape Town's "Alternative A" insolvency regime. Section 1110, US Bankruptcy Code (on which Alternative A is based) has worked well in US airline restructurings. But Alternative A may not mesh well with English insolvency law. Will Alternative A hamper restructurings of UK operators of helicopters and other aircraft?

It is trite to observe that issues related to the insolvency of a company are not arbitrable. However, the generality of this broad proposition can be misleading. In this the first of two articles on the arbitrability of claims, we look at how a court may approach a winding up petition in the face of a claim that the purported debt on which the petition is based relates to a dispute that is to be arbitrated.