We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
The Government has announced that it will be delaying the
proposed changes to Conditional Fee Arrangements ("CFA")
and After the Event ("ATE") Insurance, in respect of
insolvency proceedings, until 2015.
The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill,
delivered to Parliament in June 2011, contains draft provisions
dealing with litigation funding and costs which would abolish the
recoverability of CFA success fees and ATE premiums from the losing
party in any form of litigation. There is widespread concern that
these proposals would have a negative impact on insolvency
litigation, as it would make it more difficult for Insolvency
Practitioners and their lawyers to recover funds from unscrupulous
directors and third parties.
In view of the increasing use of CFAs in insolvency litigation, the
Government announcement is welcome news as it demonstrates that the
Government appreciates that insolvency should be treated
differently to other areas of litigation and it will allow the
insolvency profession to work with the Government to implement
alternative measures to allow these cases to be pursued in the
future.
The implementation of all other proposals under the Jackson reforms
for non-insolvency proceedings, originally expected in October of
this year, has been delayed until April 2013. Therefore, where
there are cases to be pursued by way of a CFA, it would be prudent
to move quickly to ensure that they are dealt with before the
changes come into force.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Where a solvent company goes into liquidation voluntarily its creditors can expect to recover everything due to them. But what happens if a creditor’s claim is contingent?
The English Supreme Court’s eagerly awaited decision on the Eurosail litigation, concerning how the "balance sheet" test for insolvency should be applied, was released today.
A commentary on the UK Supreme Court judgment in the joined cases of Rubin and another v Eurofinance SA and others and New Cap Reinsurance Corporation (in liquidation) and another v A E Grant and others [2012] UKSC 46, which has been anxiously awaited by the UK's restructuring and insolvency community.
The relationship of agent and principal does not always give rise to fiduciary obligations on the part of the agent to hold monies due to the principal on trust.
Insolvency practitioners have a duty to take reasonable care to realise the best price on the sale of property within the insolvent estate, but, however, there is a discretion as to how this duty is discharged.
Under common law and statute, the primary duty of an LPA receiver is to receive income from the property and use the same to discharge the debt owed by the borrower, however, under the express terms of almost every charge this duty is modified and supplemented by a very wide range of powers far beyond the right to simply "receive income".
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
