This article was first published in Butterworth's Journal of International Banking & Financial Law. To access a copy click here.
– Until recently contractual payments to counterparties that had decided to cease trading by reason of their insolvency could be treated as being held on constructive trust by the payee for the benefit of the payer. This provided a degree of protection to the payer in any subsequent competition with the wider body of creditors for the paid sum. Angove’s Pty Ltd v Bailey and another has recently removed, or at least significantly reduced, that measure of protection.
– The paying party still has a number of potential steps it may take to protect its position in such circumstances.
Angove’s Pty Ltd v Bailey and another  1 W.L.R. 3179 held that payments made to a counterparty at a time when it had decided to cease trading as a result of its insolvency are not held on constructive trust for the paying party by that reason alone. The case alters the balance of insolvency risk that the paying counterparty must now consider in its business arrangements. In this article the author considers some of the steps the paying party may take in light of the prospective insolvency of its counterparty.
Matthew Reeve gives a brief and topical analysis of the position of owners, when stuck with someone else’s cargo, having withdrawn the vessel or terminated the charterparty, including recent cases such as, The KOS  UKSC 17,  2 Lloyds 292, Benedetti v Sarawis  AC 938, The BULK CHILE  2 Lloyds 38, The LEHMANN TIMBER  2 Lloyds 541 and The BAO YUE  1 Lloyds 320. To view the article in full, please follow the attached link to the Lexology website.
Michael McParland’s article “Tacit contractual relationships and the special jurisdiction provisions of the Brussels I Regulation: Granarolo v Ambrosi” has been published today in Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly (LMCLQ (2016), pp. 500-517). Michael’s article deals with important developments in the European Court of Justice (‘ECJ’) as to how the concepts of ‘matters relating to a contract’ and ‘matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict’ are to be interpreted for the purposes of the ‘special jurisdiction’ provisions of the Brussels I Regulation, and will be of interest to anyone involved in cross-border disputes in Europe. The ECJ has introduced for the first time a concept of ‘tacit contractual relationships’: which, if found to exist in the specific circumstances of the case, means the special provisions of contractual jurisdiction are engaged, even though national law (and the Advocate General in the Granarolo case itself) had characterised the claim as tortious. Granarolo is likely to give rise to a number of disputes and further questions in the future, and will also have an impact in determining how (and indeed where) the dividing line between the applicable law regimes of the Rome I and Rome II Regulations is to be drawn.
Robert Thomas QC and Jeremy Richmond look at some pressing legal issues arising from the recent insolvency of Hanjin Shipping. Please click here to view the full article, which was published in the November 2016 Volume 13, Issue 6 of International Corporate Rescue and appears here with the kind permission of the publishers, Chase Cambria.