Shut out bid meaning

A cohort of reinsurers asked High Court Judge Simon Picken to shut down part of Fidelis and Chubb’s bid to make them fund or share the insurance outlay owed to aircraft lessors, including AerCap Ireland Ltd and Merx Aviation, saying Chubb and Fidelis were attempting to ‘jump the queue’ in the proceedings. Chubb and Fidelis are pursuing AIG and AXA for sums said to arise from a June 2025 judgment in a trial about responsibility for aircraft marooned in Russia after its 2022 invasion of Ukraine. That case examined whether the loss of the aircraft engaged war-risk policies, which carry caps, instead of wider all-risk covers. The decision of High Court Judge Christopher Butcher left Chubb on the hook for US$57.6m due to AerCap, while Fidelis has paid US$289.5m to AerCap and Merx under lessor policies, court papers say, as set out in the filings placed before the court. Counsel for AIG and AXA contended they have no obligation to reimburse the insurers under the UK’s Civil Liability (Contribution) Act...

Restructuring & Insolvency weekly highlights—4 December 2025 In this issue: Corporate insolvency processes Personal insolvency Restructuring Directors and insolvency Insolvency litigation Financial institutions Tax and insolvency Daily and weekly news alerts Key dates for restructuring and insolvency professionals New content New content Corporate insolvency processes Judgment Alert: Blue Rock Capital Ltd v Miride Management Ltd [2025] EWHC 3126 (Ch) The Chancery Division upheld the Applicant’s bid for an injunction, restraining the Respondent from issuing a winding-up petition. The dispute arose from a £53,876 liability said to be unpaid rent under a company let agreement. The Applicant maintained that oral arrangements existed which either excused the rent altogether or provided that the Respondent’s director would meet the sums via his own company, to set off personal liabilities he owed to the Applicant’s director. The court decided the Applicant had shown the debt was genuinely contested on substantial grounds. Although contemporaneous paperwork corroborating...

This Resource Note summarises the core provisions of Rule 21 of the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers (the Code). It covers the limits on an offeror taking frustrating action in connection with an offer, and the approach to inducement fees and other offer-related arrangements. Rule 21 also mandates that competing offerors are given equivalent information, and that the offeree’s independent directors receive all information supplied to external finance providers in a management buy-out. It signposts relevant materials, commentary and guidance from the Panel on Takeovers and Mergers (the Panel), alongside Lexis+® UK analysis and resources, to provide practical direction on the interpretation and application of Rule 21... Materials covered in this Resource Note include: Practice Statements issued by the Panel Executive (the body responsible for the day-to-day supervision and regulation of takeovers) (Executive), offering informal guidance on how the Executive typically interprets and applies the Code Panel Statements issued by the Panel (P/S) and Panel Instruments Public Consultation Papers (PCP) and Response Statements...

Prepared with insights from Rebecca Cousin of Slaughter and May on market practice. Background UK public company takeovers are tightly regulated transactions, and meticulous forward planning is fundamental to the success of any takeover bid process. This Practice Note sets out the matters an offeror should weigh when preparing a takeover, including the need for strict secrecy before any offer announcement, the various situations in which an announcement becomes required, and the very significant implications that follow once an announcement is made. It also explains the roles of the key advisers, the different structures used for takeovers, financing considerations, anti-trust and other regulatory considerations and constraints, such as limits on entering into offer‑related arrangements and special deals with shareholders. Bid team A suitable team of advisers should be appointed at the outset. Under the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers (the Code), discussions before announcing a possible offer must be confined to a very restricted group of people—without the consent of the Panel this is capped...

This Practice Note explains protective costs orders (PCOs), which restrict the quantum of costs payable in litigation. It outlines when the court may grant a PCO, what such an order looks like, the process for seeking one, and the consequences on costs if the bid fails. It also reviews authorities on PCOs in closed material proceedings, and addresses cost capping orders. A protective costs order (PCO) exists to ensure claimants are not shut out from advancing meritorious claims purely because of the financial risk. It does so by capping the exposure to costs within the proceedings. While costs capping orders (CCOs) likewise impose limits, PCOs and CCOs must be kept distinct: the jurisdictional bases differ, and their roles and aims are not the same. The court’s power in respect of each derives from separate sources, and the functions served by the two orders are markedly different. Accordingly, they serve different purposes within costs management and should not be conflated either. In summary: PCOs cap the...