When trying to enforce security over property, it is important for a lender to consider the order in which the proceeds of sale will be distributed – a matter decided by the priority of any charges that exist. The general rule is that whichever legal charge is entered onto the charges register has priority, but this isn’t always the case.   

Scenarios where priority may be different 

Key point

This case demonstrates how reservation of legal rights can be key even if the parties are seeking a commercial solution

Facts

Key Point

Subrogation operates not by assigning the benefit of the relevant third party's security but by creating new security rights in the hands of the subrogated creditor similar to those held by that third party.

Facts

In Credit and Mercantile Plc v (1) Kaymuu Ltd (2) Kevin Michael Wishart and (3) Ian Mark Defty (as Trustee in Bankruptcy for Mr Sami Muduroglu) [2014] EWHC 1746, the court held that whilst a beneficial interest was created in favour of Mr Wishart, it did not take priority to the claimant’s charge.

Background

Court of Appeal denies input tax on accountancy services relating to arefinancing and restructuring process: Airtours Holiday Transport Limited vHMRC5

Key Point

Two recent cases have resulted in innovative structures for restructuring the finances of groups of companies being sanctioned by the English Courts pursuant to schemes of arrangement. The trend for using such a mechanism for financial restructuring shows no signs of abating. On the contrary the innovative scope of such schemes appears to be expanding

Stemcor restructuring

The scheme

Key Point

The liquidation of an agent for service appointed by a Borrower under a loan agreement did not prevent the Lender from validly serving process on the Borrower by delivering documents to that agent.

The facts

A loan agreement contained the following clause:

"Service of process. Without prejudice to any other mode of service allowed under any relevant laws, each Borrower -

Under the equity of exoneration, where jointly owned property is charged to secure the indebtedness of one joint owner, the other joint owner is presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to be acting as a surety only, and is entitled to be exonerated by the principal debtor. This long established principle remains relevant in the modern day, as was recently demonstrated in Day v Shaw.

Many will be familiar with the words “further advances” and associate this term with typical boiler plate provisions in finance documents.

In a recent case (In the matter of Black Ant Co Ltd (in administration) [2014] EWHC 1161 (Ch)(15 April 2014) the High Court provided useful commentary on the meaning of “further advances” in the context of the priority of security.

CLLS responds on bail-in: CLLS' financial and insolvency law committees have responded to Treasury's consultation on the implementation of bail-in powers. CLLS feels it would have been better for the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013 and relevant secondary legislation to have been promulgated only once the EU Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD) was final. However, it appears the UK Government does not want to wait until January 2016 to apply bail-in requirements and so is proceeding ahead of the EU timetable.