Receiverships usually arise from a secured creditor exercising their rights under a loan contract or mortgage following a default. But even where no default occurs, the Supreme Court of New South Wales has jurisdiction to appoint a receiver to preserve the property of an association pending the resolution of a dispute about the management of the association’s property.

Jurisdiction

The long awaited new Scottish Insolvency Rules for Company Voluntary Arrangements and Administration (The Insolvency (Scotland) (Company Voluntary Arrangements and Administration) Rules 2018) were laid in Parliament today. The Rules are a negative SI which means they do not need active approval by Parliament and will automatically come into effect as law unless either the Commons or Lords annuls them within a fixed period after they have been laid. The intention is that they will commence on 6 April 2019.

It’s been reported that the board of directors of AIM-listed Patisserie Holdings plc, which owns the Patisserie Valerie chain of cafés, was not aware for almost a month that HMRC had filed a petition at the High Court of England and Wales to wind up its main trading subsidiary, Stonebeach Limited.

Recently, there have been a number of high profile insolvencies hitting the headlines with a number of High Street retailers entering insolvency either by proposing a company voluntary administration (“CVA”) or via another formal insolvency process. With the recent number of high profile insolvencies there has been scrutiny of directors’ duties not only by media but also at government level.

A company’s non-compliance with a statutory demand is the most common method of proving its insolvency in any winding up proceedings. Generally, if it does not make good the debt under the statutory demand within 21 days of service, the company will be presumed to be insolvent. What can a company do if it disputes the legitimacy of the debt?

The basics – compulsory winding up and statutory demands

The last few years have seen the Commonwealth increasingly crack down on misuse of the Fair Entitlements Guarantee, or FEG, program. The cases that have resulted have led to various disputes in insolvency law about the priorities of different creditors. The priorities to be applied in insolvent trading trusts have been one issue recently puzzling lawyers and insolvency practitioners alike. Relief may well be around the corner, however, as the High Court is set to weigh in.

What the FEG?

Prior to March 2017, any right to sue that comprised an asset of a bankrupt’s estate could only be litigated by the trustee of the bankrupt. The inability of a trustee to assign a bankrupt’s cause of action resulted in many such actions not being litigated due to factors such as a lack of resources. This position changed through the insertion into the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) in Schedule 2 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Bankruptcy), which expressly permits a trustee to assign to a third party any right to sue that is held by of a bankrupt estate (see section 100-5).

The Limitations Act 1969 (NSW) (Limitations Act) establishes time limits within which plaintiffs must commence civil proceedings, including for the recovery of a debt. A failure to bring a claim within the relevant time period results in the claim lapsing, and the creditor losing its rights to enforce its debt. Accordingly, it is critical that creditors understand how the law restricts their ability to collect debts and any exceptions that they may rely upon as the limitation date approaches.

The new special administration regime for private registered providers introduced by the Housing and Planning Act 2016 was brought into force in England and Wales in July 2018. Should we be seeking to introduce an equivalent regime for Scotland?

The new English regime was developed as a reaction to the events surrounding Cosmopolitan Housing Group which suffered financial difficulties in 2012. It introduces the concept of a housing administrator and critically provides for such an administrator to have two objectives.

The question in Pleash (Liquidator) v Tucker [2018] FCAFC 144 (29 August 2018) was whether financial documents of a discretionary trust ought to be produced for the purpose of a liquidator investigating the ability of an examinee (and former director of the company) to satisfy any judgment debt that may be obtained against him.