The European High Yield Association's proposals for reforming the UK insolvency laws risk pushing the UK towards the US litigation-heavy model says Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP, the City law firm.

In proposals submitted to HM Treasury, the trade body for the high yield debt industry called for a "court supervised restructuring process" where:

Where a receiver of an insolvent company brings an unsuccessful claim, a personal costs order will not be made against the receiver unless there are exceptional circumstances making it just to do so.

The European High Yield Association (EHYA), which represents banks and investors involved in high risk bond and loan markets, has written to the UK Treasury suggesting three key areas to reform insolvency legislation to improve the 'efficiency and fairness' of corporate restructurings.

The letter suggests changes to help prevent value destruction caused by suppliers and customers terminating contractual relations, speed up resolution of disputes and restrict the influence of creditors and shareholders with no economic interest in the revalued business.

It is over 10 years since the House of Lords decision in the case of Sharp v Thomson (1997 SC (HL) 44) threw a judicial cat amongst the pigeons of property and insolvency law in Scotland. The House of Lords, overturning decisions of both the Outer and Inner Houses of the Court of Session, decided that ownership of a property passed unencumbered by, in this case, a crystallised floating charge, even though the disposition of that property (which had been delivered before the floating charge crystallised) had not yet been registered in the Property Register.

This Act received Royal Assent in July 2007 but no date for implementation has been published yet.

In addition to the provisions contained in this Act aimed at improving the working of the tribunals system and increasing judicial diversity, are several sections that will be of interest to financiers and insolvency professionals: 

In Franses v Al Assad – Butterworths Law Direct 26.10.07 a freezing order was granted against the first respondent, principally in respect of £6.5m that formed part of the proceeds of sale of a property that had allegedly been owned by him. The first respondent applied to discharge the freezing order.

The company, through its receivers, brought and prosecuted an unsuccessful claim against the defendants. The claim was financed from funds subject to the receivers’ control but the receivers had no beneficial or personal interest in those funds or the outcome of the proceedings. The first defendant sought to recover his costs of the proceedings from the receivers from funds realised in the course of the receivership on the basis that they were the real claimants, and had conducted the proceedings for the benefit of themselves and the bank that had appointed them.

MB had been the secured tenant of a property in which she lived with B, and which she had bought at a substantial discount. The property was conveyed into the joint names of MB and B as joint tenants. Although MB’s mortgage company had insisted the property be in joint names, she claimed that the intention had always been that B would only have a minimal interest in it. He had made no contribution to the purchase price, mortgage repayments or household expenses. When MB had ascertained the effect of the joint tenancy, she gave notice of severance to B.

A husband and wife jointly owned their property. In matrimonial proceedings, the husband was ordered to transfer his interest in the property to the wife. Following his bankruptcy, the husband’s trustee applied to set aside the property transfer on the basis that it had been made at an undervalue, and the wife had given no consideration in money or money’s worth within the meaning of s339 of the Insolvency Act 1986. The wife contended that the fact that she had foregone ancillary relief claims was capable of amounting to consideration.

In a recent decision issued by Lord Drummond Young, one of the Scottish insolvency judges in the Court of Session, useful guidance has been issued which will be of interest to practitioners having to deal with the, not uncommon, situation of a retiring practitioner and replacement with a current partner in the same firm.