The question of who is entitled to payment of compensation for PPI where a debtor has been discharged from his/her Protected Trust Deed (PTD) had given rise to conflicting judicial decisions in Scotland. In our previous article, we highlighted the uncertainty created following the decision of Sheriff Reid in the case ofDonnelly v The Royal Bank of Scotland (Donnelly) and the decision of Lord Jones in Dooneen Limited, t/a Mcginnes Associates and Douglas Davidson v David Mond (Dooneen).

The question of who is entitled to payment of compensation for PPI where a debtor has been discharged from his/her Protected Trust Deed (PTD) has given rise to conflicting judicial decisions in Scotland. In our previous article, we highlighted the uncertainty created following the decision of Sheriff Reid in the case of Donnelly v The Royal Bank of Scotland and the decision of Lord Jones in Dooneen Limited, t/a Mcginnes Associates and Douglas Davidson v David Mond.

It is estimated that there were almost 40,000 Protected Trust Deeds (“PTD”) entered into between 2005 and 2010. Similar to an IVA, a PTD is a voluntary arrangement in which the debtor conveys his estate to an insolvency practitioner (“the Trustee”) to be held on trust for the benefit of creditors. A large number of those who enter into a PTD do so because of borrowing that they have incurred on credit cards.

Parent company guarantees and performance bonds are typically used in the construction and engineering industries to provide a developer with some security in the event that the contractor breaches the building or engineering contract or, in some circumstances, upon the contractor's insolvency.

In the current economic climate, contractor default is, unfortunately, even more prevalent in the construction and engineering industries, and so the issues surrounding parent company guarantees and performance bonds are very much in focus for developers.

In an important decision for commercial property landlords, the High Court in Prudential Assurance Co Ltd and Others v PRG Powerhouse Limited and Others has ruled that a CVA (defined below) cannot operate so as to prevent landlords from enforcing a parent company guarantee. The Court's decision however was reached on the basis that to determine otherwise would have been "unfairly prejudicial" to the landlords.