The High Court gives an insolvency exclusion a wide scope and declines to apply narrow interpretation rules for exclusions in insurance contracts in Crowden and another -v- QBE Insurance (Europe) Ltd [2017] EWHC 2597 (Comm).

The Facts

Key points

• Payments under a remuneration scheme did not constitute dividends, as the formal decision to categorise them as such was taken by an accountant at the end of the year.

• Assignments of claims should expressly include all claims which can be made under that assignment in order for title to pass.

The facts

The professional indemnity insurer of an insolvent independent financial adviser (Target) successfully relied on an insolvency exclusion in the policy to deny liability to third party (former) clients of Target1.

In 2005 Target had advised Mr. and Mrs. Crowden to invest £200,000 in a “Secure Income Bond” issued by SLS Capital SA in Luxembourg and Keydata Investment Ltd.2 SLS went into liquidation in 2009.

Two recently published decisions in the TCC considered the enforceability of an Adjudicator's decision and insolvency issues

Typically, the TCC has sought to enforce an Adjudicator's decision and the avenues for the losing party to challenge the award is narrow. The case law regarding what may and may not give rise to a successful challenge is well known and outside the scope of this note.

On 20 October 2017 Registrar Derrett handed down judgment in the case of Thomas v Haederle (unreported), in which she gave reasons for dismissing a bankruptcy petition presented by the debtor (T) in the County Court at Norwich on 4 December 2014, pursuant to s 272 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA86), as it then was.

This article was originally published in International Corporate Rescue, Volume 14 Issue 5, 2017.  Please click here to read the original article.

It is now clear that the Pensions Regulator will take a much tougher approach in future towards employers and scheme funding. The new approach comes after a select committee of MPs looking into the BHS collapse criticised the Regulator for being reactive, slow-moving and reluctant to exercise its powers.

The two key areas where we expect the Regulator to be more aggressive are scheme funding and "moral hazard" powers.

The Court of Session has found that the EU Regulations to found jurisdiction for Insolvency proceedings based on COMI do not apply in a purely UK matter.

Bank Leumi (UK) plc (The bank) lodged a petition to make an Administration Order in respect of Screw Conveyor Limited (the company). While the company's registered office was in Birmingham, the bank stated in its petition that the company's centre of main interest (COMI) was in Scotland.

Following our previous article about farms facing insolvency as a limited company, we will now discuss the implications of insolvency on a sole trader or partnership.

Farmers running their business as a sole trader could face personal bankruptcy in the event the business faces financial difficulty.