insolvensy and sequestration Flashcards
what is insolvency
financial sense= debtor cannot meet liabities to cred
common element to these procedures is that an officially appointed third party has resp of turning the property into liquid assets and distributing such assest to cred to attempt to settle debts
insolvency touches on what law
obligation property law of person(llb) employement dil tax
scots law distinction between types of debtors
company debtors = corp insolveny
non company debtors= sequestration
sequestration
judicial process transferring whole assets of insolvent to trustee. this is done for the prupose of sale of property by the trustee and distribution by cred of the insolvent.
avalible for all insolvent EXCEPT REG COMPANIES
trust deed for behoof of cred
similar to seq. but PROCEDURE is VOLENTARY rather than JUDICIAL. less expensive meaning more money will go to cred. NOT AVALIABLE FOR REG COMPANY
bankrupcy
Is concerned with the affairs of individuals partnerships and unincorp bodies reather than companies (liquidation recieverhsip and admin)
liquidation
procedure for winding up a reg company. LIQUADATOR appointed with a similar role to trustee in seq. at end of seq the COMPANY IS DISSOLVED
available for solvent as well as insolvent companies
recievership
used for enfocing old floating charges (PRE 2002 ENTERPRISE ACT) RECIVER TAKES OVER RUNNING OF COMPANY RELISES ASSETS FOR BENEFITS OF CHARGE HOLDER
administration
only available to companies. admin takes over management of company for benefit of all concerened rights of cred suspened
company voluntary arrangements
deal approved by the majority cred for payment less than 100% of debts due
WHAT governs the insolvency porceedings on scotland
BANCRUPCY SCOT ACT 2016
PRACTICAL INSOLVENCY
CASH FLOW INSOLVENCY – debtor unable to pay debts as they fall due.
ABSOLUTE INSOLVENCY
BALANCE SHEET INSOLVENCY – total liabilities exceed total assets (affects gratuitous alienations and unfair preferences and can lead to disqualification of directors).
APPARENT INSOLVENT
s 16 Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 2016 arises automatically on occurrence of certain events. Formerly notour bankruptcy. Does it apply to companies? When does it apply? a. sequestrated b. made bankrupt in UK c. debtor gives written notice to creditors that he has ceased to pay debts d. Becomes subject to insolvency in EU member state other than UK e. debtor grants trust deed to creditors f. charge for payment served on debtor and expires without payment g. decree of adjudication is granted h. debt payment programme under 2002 Act is revoked i. creditor is owed a prescribed amount £1,500 serves statutory demand for payment and denial of debt by debtor or no payment of debt within 3 weeks
WHEN DOES APPARENT NOT APPLY
n the case of (f), (g), and (h), s 16(2) provides that apparent insolvency does not arise if the debtor was able and willing to pay debts as they fall due, or the debtor had a restraining order that made payment impossible
what are the two important effects of apparent insolvency
(1) Precondition to Sequestration. (2) Equalisation of Arrestments and Attachments
sch 7 para 1 bankcrupcy scot act 2016
Clark v Hinde Milne & Co
Diligence Act 1661 and Adjudication Act 1672
judications within a year and a day are equalised
Stewart v Jarvie 1938
equalisation can apply to sequestration and liquidation.
as arrestment. if the dililgence is created 60 days prior to sequestration or apparent insolvency then it will be equalised held it was more than 60 days so not struck down
s 24, Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 2016
s 24(1) sequestration is deemed to be adjudication, arrestment, or attachment (the reference to adjudication will be removed by the 2007 Act if land attachments ever come into force
s 24(3), 2016 Act (applied to liquidation s 185, 1986 Act) for inhibitions and s 24(6) for arrestments, attachments interim attachments and money attachments – the 60 day rule and ineffectual diligence. The former provides that inhibitions in the 60 days before sequestration become for the benefit of the trustee in sequestration on sequestration.
MacMillan v T Leith Developments Ltd
60 day rule The interpretation given to “effectually executed diligence” in the context of arrestment (and attachment) largely deprived the expression of having any legal effect. (para 57 per Lord President Carloway and para 90, per Lord Drummond Young) (b) The expression “effectually executed diligence” relates to the 60 day rule set out in s 24 of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 2016 (and its predecessor provisions). (para 58, per Lord President Carloway and paras 94–97 and 100–101, Per Lord Drummond Young) (c ) The suggested interpretation in (b) was endorsed by the promoter of the bill when the floating charge was originally introduced, and so is supported by application of Pepper v Hart. (para 59 per Lord President Carloway and paras 98–99, per Lord Drummond Young) (d) The decision in Lord Advocate v Royal Bank appears to take an inaccurate view of the law of arrestment, and relies on case law which did not directly relate to the orthodox application of the law of arrestment (paras 84–88, per Lord Drummond Young) (e) The case creates a circle of priorities where there is an assignation, an arrestment that predates intimation of the assignation, and a floating charge which postdates the intimation of the assignation. (paras 92–93, per Lord Drummond Young) (f) The decision in Lord Advocate v Royal Bank ran counter to the true nature of the floating charge in giving the debtor freedom to deal with assets before attachment of the floating charge — which means that assets are free to be attached by creditors too (para 89, per Lord Drummond Young) The next two grounds are specific statutory interpretation issues — in addition to the Pepper v Hart issue identified as factor (c ). (g) The re-enactment of the provisions relating to effectually executed diligence after the decision in Lord Advocate v Royal Bank did not serve as parliamentary endorsement of the earlier Inner House decision — Barras v Aberdeen Steam Trawling and Fishing Co, [1933] AC 402 is only an aid to construction and not conclusive and does not apply to consolidation statutes (Haigh v Charles W Ireland Ltd 1974 SC (HL) 1, at 40 per Lord Diplock endorsed). (See para 65 per Lord President Carloway and paras 104–109, per Lord Drummond Young) (h) While Lord Advocate v Royal Bank has represented settled practice for 40 years, and the courts will generally be slow to reverse a decision where practice has been settled (see, for example, R (on the application of N) v Lewisham LBC, [2015] AC 1259). IN the view of Lord Drummond Young it is necessary to distinguish between adversarial and non adversarial processes (per Lord Drummond Young at paras 111–112) and as Lord Advocate v Royal Bank related to non adversarial processes the settled practice rule did not apply to restrict the court in overturning the case. (See paras 66–68 per Lord President Carloway and paras 110–114, per Lord Drummond Young). The arguments (a) to (f) in MacMillan largely replicate the criticisms in the articles on Lord Advocate v RBS (including those of Sim and myself). Commentators had suggested in addition the following (although this does not appear as a factor directly referenced in the judgment). The reversal of Lord Advocate v RBS also serves to address this problem and ensure the floating charge operates in a way more consistent with the general law. (i) The decision in Lord Advocate v Royal Bank seems contrary to Forth and Clyde Construction Co Ltd v Trinity Timber & Plywood Co Ltd 1984 SC 1 which held that a floating charge attached subject to a statutory hypothesis — which provides that the charge attaches as if it is the default type of security applicable to the particular property to which it attaches, hence for incorporeal moveable property the charge attaches as if it is an intimated assignation in security. In the general law an arrestment made before the intimation of an assignation will mean the arrester will take priority over an assignee and therefore the approach taken by Lord Advocate v RBS was inconsistent with the general approach to competitions between diligence and fixed securities.
An area where a transaction entered into by the debtor prior to insolvency can be challenged either
CHALLENGES TO PRIOR TRANSACTIONS(a) recover assets conveyed to third parties; or (b) strike down securities in favour of third parties
Thomas v Thomson
FRAUDULENT TRANSACTIONS AT COMMON LAW
When a man is insolvent, and knows it, he is barred by the first principles of justice from giving any preference to one of his creditors over another.
“It is the duty of a person notoriously insolvent to abstain from every act which can affect the preferences of his creditors
WHAT IS NEEDED FOR FRAUDULENT TRANSACTIONS AT COMMON LAW
- prejudice to creditors by diminishing estate for creditors
- absolutely insolvent or about to become so
- other party to transaction (not debtor) need not know there is a problem, but if they do then, 4. collusion between transferee and debtor suggests fraud
- fraud cannot be accidental – debtor must know insolvent
- voluntary action – no legal compulsion so to act 7. ordinary acts of administration are not fraudulent transactions, extraordinary ones might be
stewart &marshall v jarvis
fraudualnt transactions
any cred not a party to it or a trustee in sequestration xan reaise an action. with remedies in REDUCTION OR REDELIVERY THERE IS NO FIXED TIME LIMIT UNDER COMMON LAW. -VE PRESCRIPTION APPLIES
GRATUITOUS ALIENTATIONS
def
are simply gifts or part-gifts. Gifts made when a debtor is absolutely insolvent can be challenged by creditors and ‘reduced’. The law is governed both by common law and statute
GRATUITOUS ALIENTATIONS
common law
. It would seem that it is not necessary to show that the debtor intended to defraud creditors or that act was done with a view to avoiding the effects of bankruptcy
GRATUITOUS ALIENTATIONS
statutues
s 98 2016 Act, s 242 1986 Act
There must be an alienation by the debtor. 2. The alienation must transfer the debtor’s property or discharge or renounce a claim or right. 3. Sequestration, grant of trust deed or appointment of judicial factor. 4. Alienation within appropriate time period 5 years if to an associate
2 years in other cases
What is an associate of the debtor?
gratioutious alienatiation
s 229, 2016 Act (applied to liquidation by s 242 1986 Act) includes various relatives and business associates, employers and employees. And note the definition of associate in the Insolvency Act 1986, s 435, for companies.
Note, the alienation will not be capable of challenge if one of the defences can be upheld.
what are the defences or grat alienation
The debtor was not absolutely insolvent b. The alienation was for adequate consideration c. The alienation was a permitted gift (birthday present etc or for charitable purpose) if reasonable in circumstances
who can raise action for challenging grat alienation
Creditor; permanent trustee; trustee under trust deed, liquidator or administrator
what remedy is granted
eduction or such other remedy as is appropriate
MacFadyen’s Tr v MacFadyen
GRAT ALIENthe term adequate consideration was considered in macfadyn were it was held to have been given its normal meaning. namely something material/ monetary
Short’s Trustee v Chung (no 1) 1998 SLT 20
GRAT ALIENreduction or restoroation is the preferred remedu and ONLY where those are IMPOSSIBLE will REDRESS be allowed
Grampian MacLennan’s Distribution Services Ltd v Carnbroe Estates
GRAT ALIENare in financial difficulty. If a court holds that a transfer of assets by a debtor is a gratuitous alienation, the transfer can be struck down and the asset returned or other redress granted, in terms of s 242 of the Insolvency Act 1986, which provides certain defences including adequacy of consideration.
In the appeal, Lord Drummond Young considered the fundamental principles of insolvency law in assessing the distressed sale of Grampian’s property and whether the £550,000 paid for it constituted “adequate consideration”. The court also considered whether a quick sale was required in the circumstances, given Grampian’s financial troubles and its immediate need for funds.
Mahmood’s Trustee v Mahmood
GRAT ALIENtransfer “for love favour and affection” from father to son considering surrounding circumstances
Johnston’s Trustee v Baird
GRAT ALIEN(is the rule ECHR compatiblE
Unfair preferences def
occur when an absolutely insolvent debtor pays a creditor in certain circumstances which give the creditor an unfair preference or advantage over other creditors. It also covers situations where an unfair security is granted to a creditor.
unfair preferences common law
Stewart & Marshall v Jervis son in debt to father transfers house to latter].
general rule is that a debtor must - at the time of insolvency - treat all creditors equally and according to their rights as then established. No preference can be given to a creditor after insolvency if such did not exist prior to insolvency.
The grounds that the challenger must prove at common law are given above in the general material on fraudulent transactions.