The recent flurry of news reports regarding the administration of high street retail chains and the subsequent sale of parts of their businesses is perhaps an opportune time to flag up the renewed importance that the hypothec plays in Scottish property law.

By virtue of the hypothec, in insolvency, a landlord automatically obtains a fixed charge ranking on the proceeds of sale of the moveable goods of the tenant that are on the premises as at the point of insolvency, up to the value of any arrears of rent.

Agreements with administrators often contain provisions to the effect that any claim against the company in administration will rank only as an unsecured claim and not as an expense of the administration. Although such provisions are common, there has always been some doubt as to their efficacy.

Generic Legal Advice Memorandum AM 2011-003 (August 18, 2011)

Overview

Key2Law (Surrey) LLP -v- De' Antiquis [2011] EWCA Civ 1567

The Court of Appeal issued its long-awaited Judgment in the case of Key2Law (Surrey) LLP -v- De' Antiquis, confirming that businesses which are in administration are not exempted from TUPE.

The First-tier Tribunal has issued its decision in the case ofM Gilbert (t/a United Foods) v HMRC, one of the first cases concerning a claim for entrepreneurs' relief to reach the First-tier Tribunal. The Tribunal was asked to decide whether a taxpayer had disposed of part of his business or, as HMRC argued, simply sold some of the assets used to carry on the business.

Recently, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision in the Nortel Networks and Lehman Brothers disputes. The judgment confirms that liabilities under Financial Support Directions (FSDs) and Contribution Notices (CNs), which are issued by the Pensions Regulator, will rank ahead of almost all other claims when a company becomes insolvent. The discussions in the case focused on whether FSDs and CNs are classed as 'provable debts', expenses of the insolvency or, indeed, neither.

In Finnerty v Clark, the Court of Appeal has given guidance on what constitutes "good and sufficient" grounds for the removal of administrators. In this case, shareholders of a company in administration were also substantial creditors of the company. They wished the administrators to raise proceedings under Section 244 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (extortionate credit transactions) to challenge loan agreements that had been entered into by the company prior to administration.

The recent case of Stephen Petitioner offers some clarification regarding issues relating to the validity of appointment of administrators.

The Facts

Sections 216 and 217 of the Insolvency Act impose draconian sanctions on directors of liquidated companies who reuse "prohibited names". Prohibited names are names that are identical to, or "suggest an association with", a company that has gone into liquidation and of which they were previously directors. The sanctions include criminal penalties and personal liability for debts. It has always been difficult for advisers to confidently advise directors whether a proposed name for a new company would be a prohibited name, given the vague nature of the phrase "suggest an association".

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has now weighed in on the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor provisions. In Enron Creditors Recovery Corp. v. Alfa, S.A.B. de C.V., Docket Nos. 09–5122, 09–5142, 2011 WL 2536101 (2d Cir. June 28, 2011), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals faced an issue of first impression—whether Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, which shields certain payments from avoidance actions in bankruptcy, extends to an issuer’s payment to redeem its commercial paper made before maturity.