With administrations and liquidations on the rise, companies may well-find that they occupy premises under a sub-lease where their immediate landlord has become insolvent and we look at their rights and how the position differs north and south of the border.
In April 2008 the Bankruptcy & Diligence (Scotland) Act 2007 ("the Act") introduced a new regime for obtaining permission for (and recalling) diligence on the dependence of a court action (i.e. arrestment and inhibition). In terms of the Act, before granting (or recalling) warrant for diligence, the court must be satisfied that:
Pre-pack sales continue to attract attention and create controversy. A pre-pack occurs when a deal is agreed for the sale of the business and assets of a struggling company prior to formal insolvency proceedings being instigated. The purchase is effected upon the appointment of the insolvency practitioner and the purchaser is very often a vehicle in which the directors/shareholders have a stake.
The purchase of off-site materials has always been an area fraught with risk for contractors and employers; even more so with the increasing threat of supplier insolvency.
The recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in Jetivia S.A. and Another v Bilta (UK) Limited (in liquidation) and Ors should make it easier to pursue claims against rogue directors. The Supreme Court held that, in instances where a company has suffered as a result of the unlawful behaviour of its directors, that behaviour cannot be attributed to the company to disallow the company, or its liquidators, from raising claims against directors for breach of their duties.
Background
On 29 April 2015 The Insolvency Service of the UK Government published updated insolvency statistics which include a breakdown of insolvencies that occurred in 2014 across various industry sectors including the construction industry. There are separate tables of statistics for England and Wales and for Scotland.
The insolvency of Scottish Coal Company Ltd ("SCC") has given rise to two recent Scottish Court of Session cases regarding performance bonds – East Ayrshire Council ("EAC") v Zurich Plc (24 June 2014) and South Lanarkshire Council ("SLC") v Coface SA (27 January 2015).
The insolvency trade body R3 have issued a useful guide to the insolvency process for creditors. The guide can be found here.
A frequent criticism is that the insolvency process (and indeed insolvency practitioners) do not do enough to engage with creditors. Partly this will be because of creditor apathy (who wants to throw good time after bad money?) but partly it is because creditors do not see the insolvency process as being structured to assist them.
The news that USC has taken steps to commence an insolvency process is further proof (if proof were needed) that despite what TS Elliot may have claimed, January really is the cruellest month.
Background
The ongoing saga of the Scottish Coal Company liquidation provides the background to East Ayrshire Council v Zurich Insurance [2014] CSOH 102.
East Ayrshire Council (EAC) granted planning permission for a surface mine at Dalfad subject to restoration obligations on Scottish Coal. These obligations were secured by a restoration bond granted by Zurich Insurance. Following Scottish Coal's liquidation, it and its liquidators, were unable to carry out the restoration work.