Suddenly there is a sense of urgency around the UK's implementation of the fourth Money Laundering Directive (MLD4). Following Treasury's initial consultation on how to implement MLD4 in September 2016, it has now published the feedback to that consultation and the draft Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 (the MLR 2017). Time is now running short, and the legislation must be in force by 26 June. All businesses covered by MLD4 will need to make changes to their procedures, systems and controls to comply with the requirements not only of the MLR 2017, but also the new JMLSG and FCA guidance (for which consultations are starting to follow).
The Supreme Court has today handed down its judgment in AIG Europe Limited (Appellant) v Woodman and others (Respondents). Both insurers and buyers of professional indemnity insurance breathe a sigh of relief as the Court of Appeal's decision, which would potentially have caused the cost of professional indemnity insurance to rocket, is overturned.
We live in uncertain times. Over the past year, we have seen the UK voting to leave the EU, the depreciation of sterling, interest rates falling to a record low, a controversial US President elected and the BBC losing the Bake Off to Channel 4.
Changing times can put pressure on existing contractual arrangements. Business drivers evolve. The formerly advantageous contract may have become difficult. Perhaps the supplier hasn’t performed what you were expecting them to, is encountering financial difficulties or has become insolvent. Alternatively, one party may be looking to save costs, increase value for money or avoid a contract that no longer meets their business needs.
Insurers occasionally fund the defence of claims which include both insured and uninsured elements. In pursuing such cases, insurers and insureds will usually agree a split of defence costs to reflect the insured/uninsured position. The recent decision in XYZ v Travelers Insurance Company Ltd  EWHC 287 (QB) serves as a warning to insurers that it may not be as simple as that - funding such litigation may come at a price for insurers in terms of exposure for claimants' costs of uninsured claims.