Although the law, rules and procedures governing corporate insolvency in Scotland and England and Wales are similar in many respects, Scotland has a separate legal system and there are some important differences in the provisions and rules applicable north and south of the border. The differences include:

In a recent case, the Victorian Supreme Court said that an accountant ‘would know well that a statutory demand involves strict time frames for response and potentially very significant consequences for a company’. The accountant failed to take appropriate steps to inform the company of the statutory demand.

The statutory demand process

If a company does not comply with a statutory demand within 21 days of service, it is deemed to be insolvent and the creditor may proceed to wind up the company.

A recent court decision considers the legal principles and sufficiency of evidence when a court-appointed receiver seeks approval of their remuneration.

A court-appointed receiver needs court approval for the payment of their remuneration. The receiver has the onus of establishing the reasonableness of the work performed and of the remuneration sought.

Floating charges are common features of finance transactions both in Scotland and in England, and share some characteristics, but these securities have different origins (the Scottish floating charge is a creation of statute while the English floating charge derives from common law) and other key differences which we outline below.

The Moveable Transactions (Scotland) Bill introduces a raft of fundamental changes designed to modernise and improve the law of Scotland in relation to transactions concerning moveable property.

A predicted wave of insolvencies on the horizon has been a recurring theme in the UK press since the start of the first Covid-19 lockdown. Most people would have predicted that forced closure of businesses and the restriction on consumers' ability to spend would lead to an increase in business and personal insolvency numbers. In reality, the wave didn't appear - at least not yet. In this blog we discuss the reasons why and whether the trends we are seeing might suggest a wave is coming in 2023.

What stopped the wave?

A Supreme Court in Australia has dismissed an application by a UK company’s moratorium restructuring practitioners for recognition of a UK moratorium and ordered that the company be wound up under Australian law.

The decision provides insights into the interaction between cross-border insolvencies and the winding up in Australia of foreign companies under Australian law.

Introduction

In the matter of Hydrodec Group Plc [2021] NSWSC 755, delivered 24 June 2021, the New South Wales Supreme Court:

What is a pre-pack?

Pre-pack is the term used to describe an arrangement whereby the sale of all or part of a company’s business and/or assets is negotiated and agreed before an insolvency practitioner (IP) is appointed, with the relevant documentation being signed and implemented immediately or shortly after the appointment is made.

Following the demise of receiverships, administration is the insolvency process most commonly used to achieve a pre-pack sale.

Why are pre-packs used?

It is possible for a trustee in bankruptcy to make a claim to property held by a bankrupt on trust. For example, by lodging a caveat over a home that is held on trust.

A trustee in bankruptcy may be able to make a claim, relying on the bankrupt’s right of indemnity as trustee of the trust. This is because the bankrupt’s right of indemnity, as trustee, is itself property that vests in the trustee in bankruptcy under the Bankruptcy Act 1966.

Explaining a trustee’s right of indemnity

Significant changes will come into force after 31 December if no agreement is reached (or is not finalised and ratified) before the end of the transition period for cross-border insolvency proceedings. Importantly, the changes will alter the grounds for jurisdiction to open insolvency proceedings in the UK and impact the recognition of those UK insolvency proceedings in the EU.