Overview

The following propositions for cross-border security and insolvency law in Scotland have recently been supported at first instance in the Court of Session:

1. a floating charge need not be valid and enforceable under the law governing foreign assets charged in order to be considered valid and enforceable over such assets for the purposes of appointing an administrator out of court under the Insolvency Act 1986 (the IA);

The Scottish Court of Session considers the interaction of Indian insolvency proceedings for three Scottish Companies that had also been placed into Administration in Scotland.

Background

The Victoria Jute Company Limited ("Victoria"), The Samnuggur Jute Factory Limited ("Samnuggur") and Titaghur plc ("Titaghur") were all incorporated in Scotland, but had been carrying out their business in India.

Following our articles on:

A company incorporated under the Companies Act has its own legal personality and can institute legal proceedings in its own name. However, difficulties can arise where proceedings are commenced on behalf of a company where this has not been properly authorised by the company. In addition, where a company is a party to proceedings, in the absence of certain limited exceptions, it must retain legal representation to act on its behalf.

Authority to Institute Proceedings

Directors of the Company

1. INTRODUCTION 

1. In May 2019, the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce ("UKJT"), a subsidiary of the UK's LawTech Delivery Panel, issued a consultation paper on the status of cryptoassets and smart contracts in English private law ("Consultation Paper"). In his foreword to the Consultation Paper, Sir Geoffrey Vos, Chancellor of the High Court of England and Wales (the "Chancellor") commented that "perceived legal uncertainty" was the reason for some lack of confidence amongst market participants and investors in cryptoassets and smart contracts.¹

Background

The Applicant, Mr Stephen Wallace was a UK based Liquidator of Carna Meats (UK) Limited (the “Company”). He claimed that his investigations into the Company’s affairs has been impeded by a lack of books and records. The Respondent, Mr George Wallace, was the Company’s former bookkeeper based in Ireland and was identified as holding all of the records of the Company. Despite a number requests from the Liquidator, Mr Wallace did not produce the documents.

Overview

The recent approval by the Irish High Court of a scheme of arrangement that restructured US$1.65bn of liabilities of Ballantyne Re plc (Ballantyne) confirms Dublin as one of the most effective restructuring venues in the EU. The detailed decision of Justice Barniville (available here) offers significant precedential value and is a clear endorsement that Irish schemes can be used to implement complex cross border restructurings. The Irish statute governing schemes is very similar to that of England and Wales.

Essence of the Ballantyne scheme:

Following the approach of the courts of England and Wales, the Supreme Court has stated unequivocally that it can no longer be said that the rules of equity are carved in stone, or are express immutable principles, unless changed by the Oireachtas.

In ACC Loan Management v Rickard, the defendant defaulted on a loan. ACC obtained judgment against him and then successfully applied to have a receiver appointed by way of equitable execution over payments which the defendant was due to receive from the Department of Agriculture under an EU farm payments scheme.

Coast Stores, the occasional wear retailer and high street stallworth has gone into administration in the UK.

Coast’s sister brand Karen Millen had partially rescued the company, buying its department store concessions arm, website, safe guarding up to 600 jobs. However, as part of a pre pack administration deal, it will not be maintaining Coasts overseas stores or its UK high-street stores.

If a transaction by a company amounts to an "unlawful distribution", and the company subsequently goes into liquidation, will an action for recovery of the benefits of that distribution, brought against the directors who authorised the transaction, be statute-barred if it is commenced by the liquidator of the company more than 6 years after the distribution was made?