The making of a bankruptcy order alone will not deprive a judgment creditor of a final charging order where it is obtained before the bankruptcy order is made.

To avoid an asset reverting to a bankrupt after the end of his period of bankruptcy, the asset must be realised. An assignment of a beneficial interest for a future price does not amount to a realisation.

With ever increasing numbers of corporate insolvencies, it is likely that the courts will see an increase in litigation raised by insolvency practitioners and creditors arising out of restructuring arrangements entered into by companies in an attempt to stave off insolvency.

While debt restructurings must always remain a significant part of the corporate recovery toolkit, all stakeholders must be aware of the underlying rules relating to the challengeability of transactions in the run up to insolvencies.

There are two main challengeable areas in Scots law:

The courts have the power to and increasingly will make a civil restraint order where an individual persistently issues claims that are totally without merit.

The Calman Commission on Scottish Devolution was tasked with recommending changes to the present constitutional arrangements for Scotland. The Commission has now reported and has proposed that the UK Insolvency Service should have responsibility for lawmaking in respect of all elements of Scottish corporate insolvency with "appropriate input from the relevant department(s) of the Scottish Government".

The Pensions Regulator recently became involved in the current controversies attaching to pre-pack arrangements.

Company Voluntary Arrangements ("CVAs") have been in the news recently for all of the right reasons. The CVA proposal advanced by JJB Sports was approved by an overwhelming majority of creditors. This has allowed the survival of JJB Sports (JJB) in its current form and allayed fears that the company would be forced into administration or liquidation with consequent job losses and further detriment to creditors.

In the Budget, the Government announced two consultation processes aimed at breathing new life into the rescue culture.

The Insolvency Service intends to consult on the desirability of super-priority status for funding to companies that are in administration or that are subject to a company voluntary arrangement. Such a super-priority would allow lenders to participate in the restructuring and recovery of such companies to a greater degree.

For debtors with limited liabilities, little surplus income and minimal gross assets, the new Debt Relief Order (DRO) is a further tool to consider in managing their debts. DROs, which came into force on 6 April 2009, are aimed at those who find they are unable to pay off their debts within a reasonable time but for whom other forms of debt relief, such as bankruptcy or Individual Voluntary Arrangements, are unavailable, or perhaps unaffordable.

What are the criteria for a DRO?

A DRO can be applied for where the debtor:

Where a debtor's assets exceed his liabilities, the onus is on the debtor to prove he can not pay his debts if a creditor seeks to annul the bankruptcy order.

In Paulin v Paulin and another, the defendant petitioned for his own bankruptcy claiming he was unable to pay his debts. The claimant applied for the order to be annulled claiming the defendant could afford to pay his debts and was deliberately attempting to defeat her claims in the matrimonial proceedings.