The terms "ranking agreement" and "intercreditor agreement" are used interchangeably but generally refer to the same types of agreement - being those which regulate the priority of repayment of indebtedness owed to the creditors of an obligor. Strictly speaking, a ranking agreement is the Scottish equivalent to the English law deed of priorities and is typically used for shorter form ranking arrangements. As is the case in England, a Scottish intercreditor agreement is typically reserved for more complex arrangements and usually ranks both securities and liabilities in point of priority.

In our first and second summaries on the key differences in taking security between Scotland and England, I summarised the positions on the Scots law of assignation and share security respectively.  This is the third summary in that five part series and considers the position on floating charges in Scotland.

In England, it is common and quite straightforward for companies and LLPs to grant all assets security by way of a debenture which includes a series of fixed charges over specified assets, an assignment of material leases, insurances and other contracts and a floating charge over assets which are not expressly subject to those fixed charges. That same approach does not work in Scotland, at least not without some adaptation.

One difficulty encountered by creditors and trustees in bankruptcy is the use of one or more aliases by a bankrupt. Whether it is an innocent use of a nickname or an attempt to conceal one's identity, the use of an alias can often create problems for creditors seeking to pursue debts and for trustees seeking to recover assets held by a bankrupt.

How does it happen?

A floating charge will usually set out the rights exercisable by the floating charge holder after the point at which that floating charge has become "enforceable".  The floating charge might also contain language clarifying when the charge is deemed to be enforceable - typically after the occurrence of an event of default set out in the underlying facility agreement which is secured by that charge

As concerns about illegal phoenix activity continue to mount, it is worth remembering that the Corporations Act gives liquidators and provisional liquidators a powerful remedy to search and seize property or books of the company if it appears to the Court that the conduct of the liquidation is being prevented or delayed.

When a person is declared a bankrupt, certain liberties are taken away from that person. One restriction includes a prohibition against travelling overseas unless the approval has been given by the bankrupt's trustee in bankruptcy. This issue was recently considered by the Federal Court in Moltoni v Macks as Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Moltoni (No 2) [2020] FCA 792, which involved the Federal Court's review of the trustee's initial refusal of an application by a bankrupt, Mr Moltoni, to travel to and reside in the United Kingdom.

What makes a contract an unprofitable contract which can be disclaimed by a trustee in bankruptcy without the leave of the Court under section 133(5A) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (Bankruptcy Act)? Can a litigation funding agreement be considered an unprofitable contract when the agreement provides for a significant funder's premium or charge of 80% (85% in the case of an appeal)?

In a recent decision, the Federal Court of Australia declined to annul a bankruptcy in circumstances where the bankrupt claimed the proceedings should have been adjourned given his incarceration and solvency at the time the order was made: Mehajer v Weston in his Capacity as Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Salim Mehajer [2019] FCA 1713. The judgment is useful in reiterating what factors the Court will consider when deciding whether to order an annulment under section 153B(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (the Act).

Generally, once a company enters into liquidation, litigation against that company cannot be commenced or be continued without the leave of the Court (Corporations Act 2001, s 471B). However, occasionally a liquidator may cause a company to commence or defend litigation after the commencement of the winding up. What happens if the company in liquidation is unsuccessful in that litigation and is subject to an adverse cost order? How will such an adverse cost order rank amongst other competing creditors?

Getting to the top