At the urging of U.S. policyholders, a Scottish court recently rejected a Scottish insurance company’s efforts to close its books and avoid full liability for long-tail claims when the insurance company is solvent and entirely capable of paying claims.

In a recent interesting Scottish case, HSBC Bank plc, Re an Order to wind up Kirkbride Investment Limited [2009 Scot CS CSOH 147], the Court of Session granted an application to wind up an overseas company and appoint Joint Provisional Liquidators. The company, registered in Gibraltar, was involved in property development in Scotland with the secured lending provided by the Bank.

The Facts

Following up on our previous blog on Lord Glennie's controversial decision in the Scottish Lion solvent scheme of arrangement we can now report that last week the scheme was formally dismissed.

On 23 November a new form of diligence will be created which allows creditors to seize money belonging to a debtor in satisfaction of a debt.

In principle, all assets owned by a debtor should be susceptible to enforcement of a debt. But at present, creditors are unable to take diligence against cash owned by a debtor. To rectify this anomaly, a special category of diligence - money attachment - has been introduced by Part 8 of the Bankruptcy and Diligence etc. (Scotland) Act 2007.

When can a money attachment be used?

The recent Scottish Court Opinion on Scottish Lion’s proposed solvent scheme of arrangement,1 in which it was held that to sanction a solvent scheme there must be a “problem requiring a solution” and, in effect, unanimous creditor approval, was followed by a short hearing on Wednesday 14th October in which Lord Glennie said that he would dismiss the petition for the scheme.

The Scottish Court of Session Decisions has nixed a scheme of arrangement under the UK Companies Act of 2006, stating it could not be judicially sanctioned without the assent of all creditors. A scheme of arrangement is a reorganization device in which, with the approval of at least three-quarters of a company’s creditors, the company may compromise the claims of all its creditors. A somewhat analogous device might be a “cram-down” under U.S. bankruptcy law, with the important distinction that a scheme of arrangement may be used even by a solvent company.

Implementation of the Bankruptcy and Diligence etc (Scotland) Act 2007 continues apace. 22 April 2009 saw the most recent instalment with the passing of Commencement Order NO.4 including Parts 5 and 10 of the Act: namely the parts relating to inhibition, arrestments in execution and actions of furthcoming.

Part 5 - Inhibition

The Office of Public Sector Information (OPSI) has published The Insolvency (Scotland) Amendment (No. 2) Rules 2009. These Rules amend the Insolvency (Scotland) Rules 1986 (S.I. 1986/1915). No Regulatory Impact Assessment has been prepared in relation to these Rules as they are not expected to impose any significant burdens on business.

View The Insolvency (Scotland) Amendment (No. 2) Rules 2009, 1 September 2009  

The question of who is entitled to payment of compensation for PPI where a debtor has been discharged from his/her Protected Trust Deed (PTD) has given rise to conflicting judicial decisions in Scotland. In our previous article, we highlighted the uncertainty created following the decision of Sheriff Reid in the case of Donnelly v The Royal Bank of Scotland and the decision of Lord Jones in Dooneen Limited, t/a Mcginnes Associates and Douglas Davidson v David Mond.

Introduction