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 times of economic uncertainty, when the prospect of insolvency is prevalent, contracting parties need, more than ever, to be aware of issues that could have an unanticipated effect on their position. The existence of Retention of Title (RoT) clauses in contracts, particularly in the construction context, and the effect of the relevant legislation, need to be considered carefully.
The Bankruptcy and Diligence (Scotland) Act 2007contains a wide range of provisions affecting personal insolvency and various forms of diligence for enforcing civil obligations. Many of the provisions that relate to Inhibitions – which apply to heritable property - will come into force on 22 April 2009. Generally these reforms are to be welcomed.
An inhibition enables a creditor to prevent a debtor from transferring ownership of any of the debtor’s heritable property located in Scotland, or granting a security over it while the debt remains outstanding.
Philip Bell v Philip Long, Andrew Thomson, PKF and Weatherall Green & Smith (North) Limited [2008] EWHC 1273 (Ch)
Background
The receiver's duty to exercise care in disposing of the company's assets and to ensure he obtains the best price reasonably obtainable at the time of sale was considered recently in the English case of Bell v Long & Others.
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.