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

The modernisation of the Scottish Insolvency Rules has been eagerly awaited for some time. In April 2017, England & Wales will see the newly transformed insolvency legislation take full effect with the introduction of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016. These new rules do not, however, impact on Scotland.

Overview

The following propositions for cross-border security and insolvency law in Scotland have recently been supported at first instance in the Court of Session:

1. a floating charge need not be valid and enforceable under the law governing foreign assets charged in order to be considered valid and enforceable over such assets for the purposes of appointing an administrator out of court under the Insolvency Act 1986 (the IA);

We recently reported on the Court of Session's decision that a liquidator of a company being wound up in Scotland may abandon both heritable property and statutory licences. A full copy of that article can be accessed here.

The Court has now issued its written decision. This provides further analysis and confirms the position that we previously reported.

Parties represented

The Court of Session has held that a liquidator of a company being wound up in Scotland may abandon both heritable property and statutory licences. Affected creditors will have the right to submit a claim in the liquidation process. In the absence of that creditor holding security, the claim will rank as an unsecured claim.

Background

Empty units, falling yields and the spectre of tenant defaults are increasingly common issues that landlords have had to face in the current recession. To add to this landlords have also had to confront a number of high profile CVAs including JJB Sports (twice), Blacks Leisure, Stylo Group, Focus DIY, Fitness First and Travelodge to name a few.

In the recent English case of Pick v Chief Land Registrar [2011] EWHC 206(Ch), the High Court held that a buyer was entitled to be registered at the Land Registry as the registered proprietor of a property sold by a bankrupt. This was the case, even though the buyer allowed the priority period in which to effect registration to lapse, and the entry of a bankruptcy restriction was made on the title after the date of the transfer, but before the application for registration.

Administrators will note with concern the decision of the East London Employment Tribunal in Spencer v Lehman Brothers (in administration) and Others, which suggests that administrators can be held to be personally liable for the discrimination of employees of the business in administration.

Background

Over the past year the Courts in Scotland have been tightening up their procedures in relation to the granting of extensions in administration. This note sets out the various issues that have arisen and considers the best ways to ensure that applications of this type proceed without unnecessary costs.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held, in Da Silva Junior v Composite Mouldings and Design Limited, that continuity of employment was preserved where an employee of a company in voluntary liquidation was subsequently employed by a company with the same majority shareholder.