The High Court recently issued its ruling in the matter of Re Avanti Communications Limited (in administration). It is the first major case since the pivotal 2005 House of Lords decision of Re Spectrum Plus  to examine the characteristics of fixed and floating charges.

Key points

In the current times of financial stress, a borrower seeking to renegotiate or refinance existing financing arrangements may be asked by its lender to enhance or refresh its security package through the grant of a new floating charge.

The question of whether a floating charge can be avoided due to section 245 of the Insolvency Act 1986 ("IA 1986") can arise in such a context.

Void floating charges under section 245 of the IA 1986

Directors resign for many reasons. For example, there may be disagreements among stakeholders about the future course of the company, they may be concerned about the risks associated with financial difficulty/insolvency, or they may just wish to retire.

The issue

A "no action" clause will appear in almost all English law-governed bond trust deeds.

A no action clause provides that a bondholder (or anyone entitled to payments on the bonds) cannot, initially, proceed directly against the issuer. Instead, the right to bring a cause of action resides with the trustee and it is only if the trustee, having become bound to take action, fails to do so within a reasonable time (with the failure continuing) that a bondholder can then itself proceed directly against the issuer.

This is one of a series of articles we at Morton Fraser are producing to guide our clients through the wholesale change proposed in Scots law in relation to security over goods, intellectual property and shares, on the one hand, and invoice finance or the purchase of receivables, on the other. For a general introduction to what the Bill covers, see here.

UK Government introduces a temporary increase to minimum debt level required for a winding up petition

Restrictions have been in place since the start of the pandemic to prevent creditors taking steps to wind up debtor companies. Those restrictions are due to expire on September 30, 2021. To lessen the risk of October seeing a mass rush by creditors seeking to wind up their debtors, the UK Government has introduced a further temporary measure in connection with liquidation petitions.

In this two part article we highlight for directors some of the main ways in which the general protection of limited liability does not apply or can be lost.

Part one of this article discusses those exceptions to the principle of limited liability that arise in insolvency or distress situations. Part two deals with the provisions that have more general applicability.

Breach of duties

Limited liability is one of the fundamental concepts in our understanding of company law. Even people who know very little about the working of limited companies may know that directors and shareholders are not liable for the debts of their companies. For the last 160 years, the protection of limited liability has been a key factor in economic growth and commercial activity as it has allowed entrepreneurs to speculate and take risks that they might not have been willing to do if the risk of personal liability overshadowed their decision-making.

The High Court has, for the first time since the introduction of the legislation in June 2020, refused to sanction a cross-class cram-down restructuring plan under Part 26A of the Companies Act. In In the matter of Hurricane Energy Plc [2021] EWHC 1759 (Ch), the court rejected a plan supported by bondholders because it had not been shown that the opposing shareholders had no better alternative prospects (i.e., the ‘no worse off condition’ had not been met).

One of the main differences in insolvency law between Scotland and England & Wales relates to the challengeable transactions regime under the Insolvency Act 1986.

In both jurisdictions, transactions that are entered into before a formal insolvency process begins can be attacked if they are detrimental to the creditors of the insolvent company. However, although both systems use similar language and address similar concerns, the law in the two jurisdictions is different, most notably with different time periods and defences to a challenge.