After ten years of operation the European Insolvency Regulation (Regulation (EC) No. 1346/2000) has been extensively reviewed by the European Commission, European Parliament and Council. On 20 May 2015, the European Parliament approved the result of that review: the recast Insolvency Regulation (Regulation (EU) No. 2015/848) (the “Regulation”), which applies to insolvency proceedings commencing from 26 June 2017.

Gift vouchers are often considered an easy and convenient option when purchasing gifts for friends and family. For the relative with unusual taste, the friend who lives in another part of the UK or the husband and wife to be who already have everything, a gift voucher may appear to be the ideal gift. But what happens if, before the recipient has the opportunity to redeem the voucher, the relevant retailer becomes insolvent?

In terms of current insolvency law consumers are ordinary creditors who rank at the bottom of the statutory hierarchy of creditors.

The Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 2016 came into force yesterday, 30 November 2016, together with other consequential amendments and changes to the Court Rules which relate to bankruptcy in Scotland.

When considering whether or not to bring a legal action, it is important to establish if it is competent and commercially worthwhile to do so. The ability to bring, or continue with, legal proceedings against a company can be restricted if that company enters into a formal insolvency process. The position of creditors may be improved now that the Third Party (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 has at last been brought into force.

Bankruptcy made clearer: One of the bastions of old-style Scots terminology, guaranteed to perplex Southern audiences, is the law of bankruptcy in Scotland as it applies to individuals and assorted others.

But maybe for no longer. The Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 2016 has reached the statute book. It’s a consolidating act, encompassing statutes from 1985, 1993, 2002, 2007, 2012 and 2014. It introduces a new and fairly modern framework, the aim being to make it less cumbersome and easier to use by those who do not have intimate knowledge of it (most of us!).

As the Courts have often stated, in bankruptcy and insolvency law, time is of the essence. Bankruptcy and insolvency legislation allows the Court to craft orders with the specific aim of shielding a Receiver against frivolous actions, such that the Receiver may complete his task of managing property while enforcing the rights of a secured creditor in a timely fashion. The HRH Hotels Ltd. case is one such example where the Court ruled that a plaintiff's claim against the Receiver was frivolous and constituted a collateral attack on the Receivership process.

The recent decision in Iona Contractors Ltd. v. Guarantee Company of North America, 2015 ABCA 240 [Iona] (PDF) (leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada denied) clarifies the law regarding provincial statutory trusts in the insolvency context.

The Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 2016 (the “Act”) received Royal Assent on 28 April 2016 and is expected to come into force by the end of the year.

The Act is only the second piece of primary consolidation legislation to have passed through the Scottish Parliament and brings together the various laws on personal insolvency into a single piece of legislation.

At the moment, the law is rather unwieldy and difficult to follow in practice.

On 20 May 2015, the Supreme Court of Appeal (in the matter of African Banking Corporation of Botswana v Kariba Furniture Manufacturers & Others) clarified one of the biggest uncertainties arising out of the business rescue provisions of the Companies Act. The Court has now clarified the meaning of the term “binding offer” in a manner which not only brings clarity to the business rescue regime in general, but also will provide greater comfort to banks and other creditors.

Thanks to a decision of the Supreme Court of British Columbia released on June 13, 2013, Court-appointed receivers can now accept appointments with greater confidence that their fees and expenses incurred in passing their accounts are recoverable from the estate - or possibly from a third party who raises opposition, if no assets remain in the estate.

In Re Avant Enterprises Inc.^[1], the Supreme Court of British Columbia expressed its reluctance to leave its receiver exposed in respect of costs incurred in the passing of its accounts.