The decision of the Inner House of the Court of Session was released last week in the keenly awaited application by the liquidators of Scottish Coal who sought directions on whether a liquidator appointed to a Scottish company could:

On 13 December 2013, the Court of Session ruled that the liquidators of The Scottish Coal Company Limited (SCC) were not able to disclaim ownership of certain open-cast mines and the environmental permits which were connected with the operation of those mines. This ruling followed an appeal by the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA), and overturns the previous decision of 11 July 2013, in which it had been ruled that the liquidators were entitled to disclaim this property.

IPs are always on guard for potential conversion claims - but what happens when no title can be established? Euromex clarifies the whole mess.

The background

The legal effect of “limited recourse” arrangements have been thrown into fresh doubt by a first instance decision of the respected Mr Justice David Richards in the case of Arm Asset Backed Securities S.A. [2013] EWHC 3351.

This decision is relevant to the following common financing arrangements.

The changes

Since 29 December 1986, the Insolvency Act 1986, as amended by 23 subsequent statutory instruments, has governed the way in which insolvency practitioners, lawyers, creditors, debtors and others dealing with insolvency issues, have addressed procedures such as bankruptcy, administration, liquidation and voluntary liquidation.

The High Court has confirmed that all rights relating to the control of data belonging to, or being controlled by, a company at the time it entered into liquidation remain vested in the company at and following its liquidation. Liquidators are therefore not personally liable for compliance with the Data Protection Act 1998 in respect of this data as they will be viewed as agents acting for the company rather than as 'data controllers'.

The Court of Appeal’s ruling in Neumans LLP v Andrew Andronikou & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 916 has provided some useful guidance to insolvency practitioners on the courts’ approach to administration and liquidation expenses.

Pre-match warm up

The Court of Appeal recently handed down its much-anticipated judgment in (1) Jetivia S.A. (2) URS Brunschweiler v Bilta (UK) Limited (in liquidation) (2013).

Reports have estimated that 1,300 UK law firms have been put at risk after Latvian insurer Balva was put into liquidation. Initially Latvian Board of Financial and Capital Market Commission (FCMC) insisted there was no cause for concern as all Balva’s insurance policies would remain effective and be transferred to its replacement underwriter, Berliner. However, when Berliner pulled the pin, declining to cover the Balva policies, panic hit the UK legal market. Berliner's exit was described by one broker as the “biggest hand grenade into [the] bottom end of the market for many years.”

The English case Webster & Anor v Mackay is an appeal against a refusal to annul or rescind bankruptcy orders. The appeal was based on the assertion that the petition debt was not for a liquidated sum as required under section 267(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986. The debtors were obliged, as evidenced by a promissory note, to repay a loan of £200,000 to Mr Mackay. However, Mr Mackay also alleged a repudiatory breach of the loan agreement due to the failure of the debtors to provide accounts.