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 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.

The reforms, which are the result of the transposition of the EU’s Restructuring Directive, should come into force in October.

Key Points:

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.

The decision provides new judicial guidance for determining the boundaries of cross-class cram down tests. 

On 28 June 2021, the High Court declined to sanction a restructuring plan proposed by Hurricane Energy plc (Hurricane), an AIM listed oil drilling company, under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (Act). The plan would have seen shareholders diluted to 5% of Hurricane’s equity, with the remaining 95% issued to bondholders as consideration for a partial debt-for-equity swap. 

The pandemic has created a chaotic business environment in which it is has at times been practically impossible to make any definitive plans. Lockdown measures have changed regularly, legislation has been introduced and extended and the rules for conducting business (when it is even possible to trade) have varied across the UK and have at times been criticised by those most harshly effected as being arbitrary and unscientific. All of this has often happened at very short notice.

As a result of temporary provisions that have been in place since March 2020*, during the Covid period directors have been broadly protected from the risk of personal liability for wrongful trading.  Those temporary provisions are due to end on 30 June, 2021 and as a result, the law on wrongful trading again becomes highly relevant.

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.

The Act provides that a payment clause will be invalid if it makes payment conditional on: