Security assignment of contractual rights | Practical Law

practical law assignment by way of security

Security assignment of contractual rights

Practical law uk standard document 9-508-0695  (approx. 96 pages).

Practical Law

Construction blog, assignment: rights about turn.

  • by Iain Suttie
  • Associate director

A couple of years ago, in a post called Guilty as charged? Or how to get rights wrong , I queried the common practice of an employer assigning its rights under the project documents (building contract and appointments) to its funder. Surely the person who needs to enforce these rights is the employer? The interests of a funder (such as a bank) can be adequately protected by way of collateral warranties or third party rights , coupled with a charge over the employer’s rights under the project documents. There is simply no need for an assignment.

I compared this to buying a new car with a loan, only for the bank manager to take away the keys and steering wheel as security, and still insist that the borrower give him a lift back to his branch. Wouldn’t it be better to leave the steering wheel, if you want someone else to drive? The confused rigmarole of such assignments gives no-one what they really need.

Well, if only a blogger’s indignation solved problems. Sadly, funders and their lawyers are often still insisting on employers assigning rights, regardless of the attendant incoherence.

But at least we now have the TCC decision in Mailbox (Birmingham) Ltd v Galliford Try Construction Ltd . O’Farrell J’s judgment neatly analyses the effect of the kind of assignment provisions that funders are apt to insist on.

The decision in Mailbox

The question arose in the context of an adjudication. Did the employer, Mailbox, have the right to commence an adjudication in its own name against its contractor, Galliford Try, in relation to a dispute under the building contract? Or had Mailbox previously assigned its right to do so to its funder, Aareal Bank?

The funding arrangements entered into between Mailbox and Aareal in 2011 included a debenture , under which the bank took security for its loan. It was drafted in fairly usual terms. Among other things, it provided that Mailbox “assigns absolutely by way of security” its rights “from time to time” under a broad range of contracts “to which it is a party”. It also required notices of assignment to be served.

Shortly after execution of the building contract, Aareal’s solicitors sent a notice of assignment to Galliford Try. The notice was signed by Mailbox and stated that all Mailbox’s “rights, interests and benefits” under the contract “belong” to Aareal.

O’Farrell J had little difficulty in deciding that there had been a legal assignment of Mailbox’s rights to Aareal (that is, one satisfying the requirements of section 136(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 ). In particular:

  • Future rights : The assignment provisions in the debenture clearly covered rights under future contracts, as well as existing ones. As future rights could not be assigned immediately, the relevant clause was to be interpreted as an agreement to assign such rights, including those under the future building contract.
  • Absolute assignment : The wording of the debenture, the requirement to give notice and the form of notice were all consistent with an absolute assignment, not a charge. The intention was fully to transfer ownership of rights under the contract, not merely charge them to Aareal.
  • Legal assignment : An agreement to assign a future right for valuable consideration could operate in equity to transfer the right as soon as it came into existence. Aareal’s agreement to provide funding supplied the necessary consideration. Once the assignment took effect, the notice converted it into a legal assignment.

Alphabet soup

One issue with assignments under debentures and their associated notices (at least in the construction sphere) is their use of inconsistent language. So for example, references to charging rights mingle unclearly with words indicating assignment. This torrential approach to drafting is doubtless intended to protect a funder’s interests, but it does create something of an alphabet soup. The wording in Mailbox is typical.

But in resolving the issues before the court, O’Farrell J’s judgment helpfully reminds us of some basics:

  • Weight of language and context : If the agreement between the parties repeatedly indicates that it is an absolute assignment, the court is likely to interpret it as such, regardless of “torrential” references to (say) charging.
  • You can’t have your cake (or soup) and eat it : Similarly, the statement that Mailbox was nevertheless entitled “to exercise all rights assigned” under the debenture in respect of the building contract, and that Aareal would “reassign any such rights to the extent necessary to enable [Mailbox] to do so”, didn’t change anything. This kind of wording is often seen in notices of assignment, which require the contractor or consultant to continue at a day-to-day level much as before. Everyone is to pretend that the assignment to the funder hasn’t really occurred.

But it is mostly confusing, self-contradictory stuff. How can an employer exercise rights under a contract – for example, to issue instructions – if it has transferred them to its funder? I suppose an employer could be acting as the funder’s agent. But that argument wasn’t run in Mailbox. That isn’t surprising: a bank would hardly permit an employer to bind it under the law of agency. The doublethink inherent in the debenture in Mailbox (and in many notices of assignment) only reinforces the view that security assignments aren’t the correct tool. Certainly, O’Farrell J was not tempted to derive some sort of contorted assignment-that-is-not-an-assignment from the words.

  • Assignment in security : The right of a borrower to a reassignment on repayment of the loan “does not preclude an absolute assignment”. On the contrary, the two are perfectly compatible. The “security” aspect does not make the assignment any less effective (or more like a charge) prior to reassignment occurring.

The upshot was that the transfer to Aareal was an effective legal assignment. But all was not lost for Mailbox. On (or just before) the day it commenced adjudication in August 2016, Aareal reassigned the building contract rights to it. So Mailbox once again had its hands on the steering wheel.

Perhaps all’s well that ends well. Or, like me, you may think the whole security assignment issue was a pointless detour. Isn’t it time that debentures are drafted to reflect the real world of construction, rather than stretching language and concepts to cover all cases and satisfying no-one?

3 thoughts on “ Assignment: rights about turn? ”

I’ve always thought these assignments were pretty pointless, whichever side of the fence I’ve been acting on, but it’s amazing how many lawyers are too frightened to step away from them. Interesting read.

Excellent blog post. Thanks for share

Excellent blog – clearly lays out the law of unintended consequences when the approach fails to consider repercussions of narrowly focused demands of funders – or funders’ lawyers.

Comments are closed.

Share this post on:

  • Online Payment
  • Client Login

Bulletins | January 30, 2018

Assignment by way of security – beware of giving away more than you bargained for.

practical law assignment by way of security

Construction

Assignment by way of security is a concept that comes up on many construction projects; typically as a condition of providing finance a funder will require an assignment by way of security of key construction documents, including building contracts and appointments, with the intention that if the borrower defaults on the loan, the assignment will be perfected and the funder will be entitled to enforce its rights under the constructions documents. How and when exactly such assignment takes place and the interplay with an employer’s rights under its contracts on a project was brought into focus in last year’s case of Mailbox (Birmingham) Limited v Galliford Try Construction Limited ([2017] EWHC 67 (TCC)).

Mailbox (Birmingham) Limited (“Mailbox”), the claimant special purpose vehicle set up to develop the Mailbox in Birmingham (“the Property”), a high-end mixed used development, boasting a Harvey Nichols and the base for BBC Birmingham, engaged Galliford Try Construction Limited (“Galliford”) for refurbishment works at the Property under a building contract dated 23 December 2013. A dispute arose between the parties regarding responsibility for delay, the final account, liquidated damages and Mailbox’s termination which was referred to adjudication, where Galliford were ordered to pay Mailbox £2,477,152.86 plus 75% of the adjudicator’s costs. Galliford did not pay the sums ordered, so Mailbox sought enforcement of the adjudicator’s decision in the High Court.

Did Mailbox have a right to bring an adjudication?

Galliford’s primary defence to the enforcement was that Mailbox had no right to bring the claim, as it had assigned the benefit of the building contract with Galliford to Aareal Bank AG Wiesbaden (“Aareal”) in accordance with the requirements of a debenture dated 10 May 2011. Mailbox raised three defences:

  • The building contract was not in existence at the time of the assignment referred to in the debenture. Therefore there could be no assignment;
  • Alternatively, any assignment was by way of charge rather than a legal assignment; or
  • The contract had been re-assigned from Aareal to Mailbox before Mailbox commenced adjudication proceedings.

Mailbox failed on the first two defences, but won on the third so was able to enforce the adjudicator’s award. However, it was the analysis of the first and second defences and Mrs Justice O’Farrell’s review of the requirements for legal assignment under Section 138 of the Law of Property Act 1925 that are of particular note.

It was held that the wording of the debenture covered future contracts, including the building contract in question. The wording “each chargor with full title guarantee assigns absolutely by way of security in favour of the security trustee” amounted to a full legal assignment rather than an assignment by way of charge and/or a conditional assignment. Further, there was a requirement for notice of the assignment to be served and specific reference to rights being re-assigned, both of which were more akin to an absolute assignment. Express notice was given to Galliford, again consistent with an absolute assignment.  Thankfully for Mailbox, on the day it commenced the adjudication, Aareal had re-assigned the rights under the building contract to Mailbox. If it had not done so, or done so after the adjudication had been commenced, Mailbox would not have been entitled to commence the adjudication.

Practical Tips

When obtaining finance for a project it is crucial to understand what the funder really requires in relation to security over construction documents. If all rights are assigned, the employer no longer has the ability to enforce such rights and may have given away more than he bargained for.

It may be that the use of collateral warranties or third party rights together with a charge will suffice but if not (which is unfortunately still the common position), it is important that any such rights are re-assigned before the employer commences an adjudication or any other proceedings.

Assignment by way of security

Not hitherto commonly known as an ABWOS even though it jolly well ought to be.

There’s quite a bit more over at set-off and even more than that at netting , and some stuff at equitable set-off , too. Unless that’s just a redirect to set-off .

Unless it is “by way of security” in name only — don’t ask, but if you must, see the footnote [1] — an assignment by way of security , usually, does not meet all the formal requirements for a legal assignment set out in the Law of Property Act . So it’s not as good. Being, therefore, an equitable assignment and not a legal assignment , there differences relating to how an assignee enforces its claim against contracting party: a legal assignee can sue in its own name; and equitable assignee only by joining the assignor to the action (I know: shoot me, right?).

Do I need an assignment by way of security if I have a charge ?

Not unless you’re the sort of person who wears two pairs of underpants in case the first fails. [2] Both are equitable interests , but a fixed charge is more formal. The problem with a fixed charge is that it requires control over the asset (an actual thing) being charged: that is easy enough if you can take possession of it (prime brokers: hooray!), but if you can’t - if it is some vague right the debtor has to be paid money at a later date - then your fixed charge might wind up looking a bit like a floating charge, which means you may wind up behind other people in the queue.

Assignment and its effect on Netting and Set-off

Could a right to assign by way of security upset close-out netting such that one should forbid parties making assignments by way of security of their rights under a master netting agreement (such as an ISDA Master Agreement or a 2010 GMSLA ), for fear of undermining your carefully organised netting opinions?

Generally : No .

  • An assignment by way of security is a preferred claim in the assignor’s insolvency over the realised value of certain rights the assignor holds against its counterparty. It is not a direct transfer of those rights to an assignee: the counterparty is still obliged to the assignor, not the assignee, and any claim the assignee would have against the counterparty would only be by way of subrogation of the assignor’s claim, should the assignor have imploded in the meantime or something.
  • “ Nemo dat quod non habet ”: [3] the unaffected counterparty’s rights cannot be improved (or worsened) by assignment and, it being a single agreement , on termination of the agreement the assignee’s claim is to the termination amount determined under the Agreement, which involves terminating all transactions and determining the aggregate mark-to-market and applying close-out netting . No one can give what they do not have. [4]
  • The assignee can be in no better position than the assignor and this takes subject to any set-off . The conduct of the debtor vis a vis the assignee is irrelevant, unless it gives rise to an estoppel. See Bibby Factors Northwest Ltd v HFD Ltd (paragraphs 38 and 48). [5]

At the point of closeout, the assignee’s right is to any termination payment payable to the Counterparty. Therefore any assignment of rights is logically subject to the netting, as opposed to potentially destructive of it.

But : This is only true insofar as your netting agreement does not actively do something crazy, like disapplying netting of receivables which have been subject to an assignment and dividing these amounts off as "excluded termination amounts not subject to netting".

I know what you are thinking. "But why on God’s green earth would anyone do that?" This is a question you might pose to the FIA ’s crack drafting squad ™, who confabulated the FIA ’s Professional Client Agreement , which does exactly that.

Lex situs for a chose in action like an assignment by way of security

Where the thing you are taking security over is a disembodied legal right — a “ chose in action ” and not a “ chose in possession ” — then what is the lex situs, seeing as this thing floats free of the ghastly, rusting mortal world of territorial boundaries? It is a Platonic right, and ethereal, idealised, utopian thing and as such as stateless, existing as it does on another plane, in another geometry, that that of tawdry earthly things like regulatory perimeters.

Here the lex situs is — in the absence of any other worldly place for it — the governing law of the right being assigned.

  • Close-out netting
  • Law of Property Act 1925
  • ↑ An assignment by way of security could be a legal assignment, if it meets the formal criteria, but one of those is that the assignment is absolute and not by way of security only, so — yeah. And there is authority about this, by the way: Mailbox (Birmingham) Limited v Galliford Try Construction Limited [2017] EWHC 67.
  • ↑ “That old man, despite all the hardships, still manages to put on a clean pair of underpants every day. And, you know? By the end of the week, he can’t get his trousers on.”—From There’s no land like Poland , by the Not The Nine O’Clock News team.
  • ↑ “A chap cannot give away what he doesn’t own in the first place.” Of course, try telling that to a prime brokerage lawyer, or a counterparty to a 1994 New York law CSA .
  • ↑ Except under New York law — isn’t that right, rehypothecation freaks?
  • ↑ Bibby Factors Northwest Ltd v HFD Ltd [2015] EWCACiv 1908
  • Taking security
  • Credit Support
  • English law

Navigation menu

Related Content

  • practice notes (82)
  • precedents (15)
  • q&as (7)

Assignment (by way of security) definition

What does assignment (by way of security) mean, view the related practice notes about assignment (by way of security), zambia—cross border banking and finance guide.

Zambia—cross border banking and finance guide Loan market and developments Please provide a brief overview of the current state of...

Priority between security interests—practical examples

Priority between security interests—practical examples This Practice Note sets out examples of how the rules on priority could work...

Discover our 82 Practice Notes on Assignment (by way of security)

View the related precedents about Assignment (by way of security)

Assignment of intellectual property rights (asset purchase) (long form).

Assignment of intellectual property rights (asset purchase) (long form) STOP PRESS—Impact of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform)...

Legal opinion letter: for a ship finance transaction

Legal opinion letter: for a ship finance transaction [Headed notepaper of law firm issuing the opinion] [insert name...

Dive into our 15 Precedents related to Assignment (by way of security)

View the related q&as about Assignment (by way of security)

How could the funder of a ‘first purchaser’ of a construction development obtain rights against the construction/design team.

How could the funder of a ‘first purchaser’ of a construction development obtain rights against the construction/design team? It...

Subject to post-Brexit potential changes in enforcing foreign judgments, is it possible to state with certainty that: A) an EU judgment will be enforced against an English company in English courts B) an EU debenture affecting an English company would be enforceable in English courts.

Subject to post-Brexit potential changes in enforcing foreign judgments, is it possible to state with certainty that: A) an ...

See the 7 Q&As about Assignment (by way of security)

View the related News about Assignment (by way of security)

Insurance & reinsurance monthly highlights—august 2019.

This month’s edition of Insurance & Reinsurance monthly highlights includes analysis of the decision of the High Court to refuse...

Corporate weekly highlights—2 August 2018

This week’s edition of Corporate highlights includes LSE guidance for AIM companies on new corporate governance requirements that apply from...

Read the latest 4 News articles on Assignment (by way of security)

Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.

Access this content for free with a 7 day trial of LexisNexis and benefit from:

  • Instant clarification on points of law
  • Smart search
  • Workflow tools
  • 41 practice areas

** Trials are provided to all LexisNexis content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these LexisNexis services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK, Ireland and selected UK overseas territories and Caribbean countries. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.

"While we began looking at LexisNexis products primarily for cost saving, it quickly became more about customer service, ease of onboarding, ongoing training and breadth of resources available."

Access all documents on Assignment (by way of security)

SocialTwitter

0330 161 1234

practical law assignment by way of security

  • International Sales(Includes Middle East)
  • Latin America and the Caribbean
  • Netherlands
  • New Zealand
  • Philippines
  • South Africa
  • Switzerland
  • United States
  • Research & Reports
  • LexTalk Forum

Popular Links

  • Supplier Payment Terms
  • Partner Alliance Programme

HELP & SUPPORT

  • Legal Help and Support
  • Tolley Tax Help and Support
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Settings
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Data Protection Inquiry
  • Protecting Human Rights: Our Modern Slavery Agreement

practical law assignment by way of security

Security assignment of contractual rights

Practical law uk standard document 9-508-0695  (approx. 96 pages), get full access to this document with practical law.

Try free for one day and see for yourself how Practical Law resources can enhance productivity, increase efficiency, and improve response times.

About Practical Law

This document is from Thomson Reuters Practical Law, the legal know-how that goes beyond primary law and traditional legal research to give lawyers a better starting point. We provide standard documents, checklists, legal updates, how-to guides, and more.

  • Increase efficiency
  • Enhance productivity
  • Improve response time
  • Asset finance and trade finance
  • Corporate lending
  • Insurance in commercial transactions

Phone

Introduction to Security

practical law assignment by way of security

United Kingdom

What is Security

Taking effective security over an asset means that the security holder can, on the insolvency of the borrower, take possession of that asset and use the proceeds to repay the loan. This puts the security holder in a stronger position than the unsecured creditors.

What does the security holder want?

Basically, a security holder has three aims. It wants to ensure that:

The security is effective on the insolvency of the borrower.

The security will take priority over anyone else who obtains a proprietary interest in the asset concerned.

The security can be enforced when required, even if the borrower is in insolvency proceedings.

A creditor may also want to know to what extent security can arise by operation of law and what alternatives there are to taking security.

Categories of Security under English law

There are four primary categories of security under English law as follows:

The term 'mortgage' and 'charge' tend to be used interchangeably but there are some technical differences.

This form of security involves the transfer of title to an asset in order to secure obligations, typically a debt on the condition that it will be re-transferred when the secured obligations are discharged. The assets secured can be tangible or intangible and physical possession of the mortgaged asset is not a requirement.

Depending on whether the necessary formalities have been complied with and whether the borrower has legal title to the asset, a mortgage can be legal or equitable.

Under an equitable mortgage, only a beneficial interest will pass to the mortgagee whereas under a legal mortgage legal title will pass to the mortgagee.

The transfer of title under a legal mortgage operates to prevent the mortgagor from disposing of the asset and assist in the creditor's ability to realise the security if required.

A legal mortgage is the most secure form of security interest and cannot (unlike an equitable mortgage) be taken over future property.

Mortgages over intangible assets such as choses in action (eg. Rights under a contract) are typically taken by an assignment by way of security which can be legal or equitable depending on the formalities complied with. See section 136 Law of Property Act 1925 ( LPA ) for requirements of a legal assignment.  An assignment by way of security transfers certain rights from the assignor to the assignee as security for the discharge of the obligations of the assignor or a third party. You cannot have multiple assignments running concurrently.

While under a mortgage title to the asset will pass to the mortgagee, under a charge title does not pass and the chargee instead  obtains an equitable proprietary interest in the security provider's assets e.g. the right to appropriate the charged assets in satisfaction of the debt, the right to restrict the security provider from dealing with the asset freely and a right to the proceeds of sale. There is no right to possession.

Charges can be fixed or floating. A fixed charge will attach immediately to the (definite and identifiable) charged asset while a floating charge hovers over a pool of assets (present and /or future) until conversion or 'crystallisation' (when it fastens onto and becomes a fixed charge over assets). The distinguishing feature of a fixed charge is that the chargor is not free to deal with the charged assets in the ordinary course of its business. The key characteristic of a fixed charge is that the lender has control over the charged asset. Control is crucial to the nature of a fixed charge. A floating charge on the other hand is a charge over a shifting class of assets which the chargor is free to deal and so permits the continuation of the business operations of e.g. a trading company.

Over certain assets e.g. stock-in-trade or inventory, only a floating charge can be created. This is because it would be impractical for a debtor not to be able to deal freely with its stock as this would cause cash-flow problems. The floating charge is normally therefore a catch-all provision for assets not specifically charged and will typically be granted over the whole undertaking.

In the case of present and future receivables, a fixed charge can, in practice, only be effectively taken if the proceeds of the receivables are paid into an account which is strictly operated as a blocked account (National Westminster Bank plc v Spectrum Plus Limited and others [2005] UKHL41) .

Liens generally arise by operation of law and are more common in commercial transactions e.g. when goods are being supplied, repaired or transported. They are accordingly more of benefit to trade creditors rather than financial creditors e.g. a creditor has a lien over goods until thay have been paid for by the security provider. However, creditors do need to think about doing due diligence in respect of any existing or future liens affecting assets that they might take security over as some will rank ahead of even prior mortgages e.g. a maritime lien.

In addition, it is possible to take a bill of sale over chattels owned by an individual under the Bills of Sale Acts 1878 and 1882, but rarely used because if you get it wrong you not only have invalid security , but the secured debt is also extinguished.

Quasi-security

Quasi-security applies to methods by which a creditor might try to enhance its position on the insolvency of the borrower without taking a full security interest.

Quasi-security includes:

Guarantees and indemnities from third parties

Comfort Letters from third parties e.g. the parent. Are they legally binding or merely expressions of intent?

Set-off and netting arrangements . Netting is a form of contractual set-off. Set-off is mandatory on insolvency for mutual credits, mutual debits and other mutual dealings. Banker's set-off-the general right of the bank to combine two or more accounts held by the same entity.

Bank guarantees and bonds. This is the bank's paper so bank has to pay absent fraud.

Standby Letters of Credit. Operate like a bank guarantee.

Retention of Title (RoT) - Romalpa clauses. Again, a lender needs to do due diligence to see whether its borrower's stock –in-trade actually belongs to the borrower or a third party supplier.

Flawed asset arrangements. This is a mandate arrangement between the bank and the borrower whereby the borrower agrees that the bank does not have to pay what it owes the borrower until the borrower pays what it owes the bank. It was held to be effective on a liquidation in BCCI No 8 [1997] 3 WLR 909 .

Negative Pledges. This a covenant by the borrower not to encumber its assets. These should preserve unencumbered assets for the general creditors. It is questionable whether they bind third parties and what effect a negative pledge has on a third party.

Hire purchase and finance lease. Title is with the lender not the borrower so no risk to the lender on the insolvency of the 'borrower'. This is an alternative method to the loan and mortgage for funding.

II. TYPES OF ASSET WHICH MAY BE SUBJECT TO SECURITY

Mortgage - includes securities, chattels and rights under a contract (via an assignment by way of security). Note that a legal mortgage can generally not be taken over most types of intangible property with the exception of: (i) documents that transfer title to the intangible property (e.g. bills of exchange) and (ii) intangibles that can be transferred into the name of the mortgagee and registered in that mortgagee's name (e.g. shares).

Charge - includes land (usually expressed to be a charge by way of legal mortgage, but a charge nonetheless), contracts, book debts, plant and machinery, goodwill, IP rights and licences.

Pledge - includes items of tangible property capable of being delivered (including documents of title to property such as bearer securities).

Lien - any asset.

III. TYPE OF OBLIGATIONS THAT MAY BE SECURED

Under English law, security may secure obligations of any kind (i.e. not just monetary obligations), including future obligations.

IV. LEGAL FORMALITIES REQUIRED

A Legal Mortgage or Charge over land must be created by way of deed (section 52(1) LPA).

A charge by way of legal mortgage over land must be executed as a deed i.e. it must state that it is a deed and be signed, witnessed and delivered as a deed.

Any mortgage or charge of land or other property (whether legal or equitable) must be by deed if the mortgagee or chargee is to have the statutory power of sale and the statutory power to appoint a receiver. Also, a power of attorney must be by deed.

A deed is a written instrument that requires more than a simple signature to be enforceable. A deed is distinguishable from a simple contract for two main reasons: (i) the limitation period for actions brought under simple contract is six years from the date of accrual of action whereas the period is generally twelve years for a deed; and (ii) deeds do not have to be supported by consideration to be enforceable.

For assignments by way of security of debts or other choses in action, the assignment must be in writing.

Pledge - in order for a pledge to be valid, the creditor must be in actual or constructive possession of the asset. A pledge can only be granted over a tangible chattel, excluding real property. No documentation is required but it is obviously preferable that the pledgor and pledgee enter into a letter or memorandum of pledge to record the terms of the pledge including the circumstances when the pledgee might sell the pledged asset.

Lien - no validity requirements as these normally arise by operation of law, although some liens depend on retention of the asset over which the lien is claimed.

Quasi-security - guarantees must be in writing and signed by the guarantor (section 4 Statute of Frauds 1667).

V. PUBLICITY/REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS

Almost all security (other than pledges) created by English companies and LLPs must be registered at Companies House within the strict 21 day (extended to 31 days during covid, but now back to 21 days) time period. Companies House is a central registry for companies in England and Wales and a public registry.

In addition, charges by way of legal mortgage over land must be registered at the Land Registry regardless of whether it is a corporate or individual granting the charge.

Various other types of asset have their own registration requirements under different regimes e.g. IP rights, ships, aircraft and bills of sale over chattels. Art security can also be registered at the Art Loss Registry.

VI. OTHER PERFECTION REQUIREMENTS

An assignment is perfected when notice of assignment is given to and received by the other contracting party ( Dearle v Hall ( 1823-28) 3 Russ1). In the case of an assignment of the general partner's right to make capital calls on limited partners in funds finance, you cannot register security against an English Limited Partnership so the only way to perfect is by giving notice to the limited partners.

For pledges and liens, these are perfected merely by the creditor holding and continuing to hold the secured asset.

VII. COSTS OF SET UP AND REGISTRATION OF SECURITY

Any security registered at Companies House costs £15 to register online and £23 to register a hard copy.

The fee to register a charge at the Land Registry (assuming it is not registered simultaneously with the transfer of land where no fee is charged) is between £40 to £250 for each title charged depending on the amount secured.

VIII. TIMING FOR PUBLICITY/REGISTRATION

Security has to be registered at Companies House within 21 days (temporarily increased to 31days during covid) of its creation counting from the day after creation. Dire consequences if you fail to do so including the charge being void against the company's other creditors including its liquidator and administrator and the secured debt becoming immediately repayable. If you fail to register, you can apply to the court for registration of the charge out of time (unless in the meantime the company has gone into administration or liquidation) or take a new charge (subject to potential set-aside until the relevant ' hardening periods have expired).

No specific deadline for registering at the Land Registry, but for priority purposes, best to do so within the priority period afforded by the pre-completion searches. Registering security within this period will ensure priority over subsequently registered charges.

Timing for submitting registration and obtaining proof of registration is almost simultaneous with online registration at Companies House and between one and two weeks in the case of a paper registration. In the case of the Land Registry the time period is approximately two weeks depending on how busy they are.

XI. LEX SITUS

Generally speaking, any security must be created under, and be in accordance with, the law of the jurisdiction where the asset is located, notwithstanding that this may be different to the jurisdiction in which the security provider is incorporated.

Mortgages -To create a valid mortgage over real property located in England and/or Wales, the mortgage has to be created under the laws of England and Wales.

To create a valid mortgage or charge over a chattel you normally have to have your security document governed by the law of the jurisdiction where the chattel is located.

X. WHAT TYPES OF RIGHTS DOES A SECURED CREDITOR HAVE?

Before enforcing its security, the holder must generally make a formal demand for payment on the borrower. The effect of a demand is to make the sums due under the loan facility payable. This is particularly important in the context of some of the enforcement rights implied under common law and statute which do not arise until the secured liabilities become payable (expressly granted enforcement rights will normally be exercisable on an event of default occurring under the loan agreement).

In relation to each type of security the following enforcement rights are available:

Legal Mortgage- Foreclosure (a court process whereby the mortgagor's rights in the secured asset are extinguished (i.e. the mortgagor's equity of redemption is extinguished) and that asset becomes vested in the mortgagee). This rarely occurs these days, although under the Financial Collateral Regulations there is a foreclosure equivalent which doesn’t involve any court process; Taking possession; Power of sale (provided the security document contains an express power of sale or is made by deed, in which case the power of sale is implied); and Appointment of a receiver (again available if express power to appoint or is made by deed in which case the power is implied).

and Appointment of receiver (same as for legal mortgage above). Note that on a sale an equitable mortgagee cannot transfer more than an equitable interest in the mortgaged asset.

For assignments by way of security where the secured property comprises choses in action (e.g. contractual rights), the assignee may exercise its power of sale (provided as above)  and/ or appoint a receiver (provided as above).

Charge -Taking possession (available provided the security document contains an express power to that effect); Power of sale (provided same as for legal mortgage above); Appointment of Administrative Receiver (only available to holder of pre-15 September 2003 floating charge over all or substantially all the chargor's assets); Appointment of Receiver (available provided circumstances relating to legal mortgages exist); Appointment of Administrator (available only to holders of a qualifying floating charges (QFCHs). A qualifying floating charge is a charge created by instrument that states that paragraph 14 of Schedule 18 to the Insolvency Act 1986 applies to it or that it purports to appoint an administrator or administrative receiver. A QFCH is generally a holder of qualifying charge which relates to the whole or substantially the whole of the company's property at the time of appointing the administrator.

Pledge -Power of Sale (available where the power is given either expressly in the security document or impliedly where the pledgor is in default and reasonable notice has been given to him).

Lien -Power of Sale (a lien holder may apply to court for an order of sale where: (i) the lien is equitable or (ii) there is a reason why a quick sale of the assets subject to the lien is preferable (e.g. perishable assets); Appointment of Receiver (available to holders of equitable liens, who may apply to the court for an order to appoint a receiver).

Compulsory Liquidation - a secured creditor can seek to have a company wound up if it has served a statutory demand for a debt in excess of £750 and the debtor fails to pay or if it can show that the debtor is insolvent.

XI. ENFORCEMENT

Foreclosure -This is a lengthy, two-stage court process that is rarely used in practice. First an order for foreclosure nisi must be obtained by the mortgagee and then the mortgagor is given a chance to pay the debt. If payment is not forthcoming, an order for the foreclosure to be made absolute can be sought. Little used because its effect is to deprive the mortgagor of its equity of redemption and it would be a very time-consuming process.

Taking Possession- in most cases a court order is required. Where a secured creditor is entitled to obtain possession of real estate, it can do so by either: i) taking physical possession of the secured property if possession is granted voluntarily; or (more commonly) ii) by bringing an action in the county court for a possession order. This can be a lengthy process e.g. up to two years.

A mortgagee in possession may incur unforeseen liabilities to third parties (e.g. the cost of environmental remediation) and owes certain duties (e.g. to the borrower to account for any income and profit actually received or which should have been received).

Power of Sale -Normally a court order is not required unless the mortgage does not include an express power of sale or is not made by way of deed. Also, a mortgagee may prefer to obtain a court order for sale if there are some issues concerning the consideration for the sale. Otherwise, a mortgagee can sell without a court order, but it does have a duty to get the best price reasonably obtainable and cannot itself buy the mortgaged property without the sanction of a court order.

Appointment of Administrative Receiver and Receiver -These are out of court processes. These can be appointed quickly by notice to and acceptance by, the Administrative Receiver/Receiver.

Appointment of Administrator -Some court involvement is always necessary. Administrators can be appointed in two ways: either simply by filing documents at court (the out of court route); or by making a formal application to the court, and (following a hearing) obtaining a court order (the court route).

Using the court route, the appointing creditor must first issue an application at the court, when a hearing date will be set, the timing of which vary depending  on the court calendar. Notice must then be given to a number of interested parties not less than five business days before the hearing. If appointed, the administrator's appointment may commence at the time of the hearing.

The out of court route is only available to QFCHs and the court route is available to all other creditors.

Using the out of court route, if there are no prior-ranking QFCHs, the appointing creditor can simply file the appointment documents at court and the appointment will commence from the time of filing. If there are prior-ranking QFCHs, the appointing creditor must serve notice of intention to appoint on the prior ranking QFCHs two business days before the appointment. If this period expires or the prior ranking QFCH consents, the appointing creditor can then appoint by filing the necessary documents at court. It is important to use the correct documents otherwise your purported administrator could end up being liable for damages as a trespasser.

Financial Collateral Arrangements (FCAs)- The Financial Collateral Regulations 2003 ( FCRs ) were brought into force to implement Directive 2002/47/EC of the European Parliament and Council and modify existing EU insolvency law in relation to FCAs, to give parties to FCAs certain rights in priority to other parties on the insolvency of the collateral giver, to dispense with registration requirements at Companies House and to permit out of court forfeiture. Briefly, an FCA applies where security over financial collateral (i.e. cash, financial instruments including shares or certain types of monetary claims) is provided by an entity (ie. not an individual) to a financial institution which must have possession or control of such financial collateral. It can also apply to stock-lending and repo arrangements.

Under the FCRs, the collateral taker can enforce an FCA even where an administrator is in place, and without having to account to (ordinarily prioritised) preferential creditors and unsecured creditors. The rights of administrators and liquidators in relation to FCAs are much more limited. For example, they have no right to dispose of the collateral, disclaim the FCA, and avoid the FCA even if it occurred after the commencement of the winding-up or to remove an administrative receiver of the financial collateral. In addition, if the FCA allows, the collateral taker can appropriate the collateral without having to obtain a court order for foreclosure.

Compulsory Liquidation -court sanctioned process. The creditor issues a petition at court to commence the process. A date for hearing is fixed at this point. Notice then must be given to the creditor at least five business days before the hearing. It is possible to obtain a winding up order within about six weeks of issuing the petition.

XII. LEGAL CONCERNS/PROHIBITIONS RELATED TO GRANTING/TAKING SECURITY

Corporate Benefit -Where security is given by a company in respect of the obligations of a third party company, the security provider, in its board minutes approving the transaction, must be able to confirm that it is in the company's interests to enter into the transaction. It is common for such third party security to be approved by unanimous ordinary resolution of the shareholders of the company in order to avoid the risk of the shareholders in the company challenging the grant of the security as being ultra vires the directors. In addition, the lender might require the directors to give a certificate of solvency in an effort to avoid the security being attacked as a transaction at an undervalue.

Security for Loans to Directors -Certain restrictions apply to the making of loans, and to related dealings such as the provision of security for loans, by a company, either to its directors, or to directors of its holding company or to persons connected with those directors. Basically a company cannot make a loan to its director or the director of its holding company or give a guarantee or provide security in connection with a loan made to a director unless it is approved by a resolution of the members of the company and (if the director is a director of the company's holding company) a resolution of the members of the holding company as well. There are additional restrictions covering quasi-loans and credit transactions to or for the benefit of directors and their connected persons   and guarantees and security for such loans in the case of a public company or a company associated with a public company where, again, approval by resolution of the members of the company and, if applicable, its holding company is required.

Taking Security over Shares in a Publicly Quoted Company

Another point to watch when taking security over shares in publicly quoted companies from its directors are the disclosure and notification requirements involved. For example, the  Market Abuse Regulations ( MAR ) (Article 19(1) and (7)) imposes notification obligations on any person discharging managerial responsibilities ( PDMR ) or their closely associated persons, within a company to which MAR applies. If a PDMR, or a person closely associated with a PDMR, grants security over his or her shares he/she must disclose the transaction to the company. The company then has to notify the market.

MAR (Article 19(11)) imposes 'closed periods' on PDMRs , or their closely associated persons, within a company to which MAR applies on dealing with its shares (including the grant of security). Clearance may only be provided in exceptional circumstances (e.g. severe financial difficulty).

The AIM Rules include certain disclosure obligations and restrictions on dealing in the company's shares for directors and their families. The AIM Rules also contain significant shareholder disclosure obligations and dealing restrictions for directors and applicable employees during closed periods.

The Takeover Code may apply to the company. If it does, there are potential disclosure obligations under Rule 8 if a charge is taken over 1% or more shares in the company. Security taken over 30% or more of the voting rights of the company could trigger a mandatory takeover offer when enforced.

Part 22 of the Companies Act 2006 allows a public company to serve notice on those 'interested' in its shares which could include a security holder. The notice can require the security holder to give information not only about its own interest but any concurrent interest of which the security holder has knowledge. Failure to comply with the notice entitles to company to obtain a court order that the shares be subject to restrictions.

Part 28 of the Companies Act 2006  contains 'squeeze out' and 'sell out' rules applying when an offeror has unconditionally agreed to acquire 90% in value of a target's shares giving the offeror the statutory right to buy out the remaining minority shareholders. This right cannot be excluded.

Under the FCA DTA disclosure regime, the holder of shares (or the voting rights in those shares) in UK companies whose shares are listed on the main market or AIM are required to notify the company (using a TR1-notification of major shareholding) once they reach the 3% threshold and each 1% change thereafter. If a lender therefore forecloses on shares under the FCRs or exercises its voting rights in respect of shares held by it as collateral the DTA disclosure regime can apply. For any questions please contact Brad Isaac .

XIII. RIGHTS OF CHALLENGE FOR THE SECURITY PROVIDER/THIRD PARTIES

General- The security provider might contest the debt, or contend that the debt was not due and owing (i.e. that the holder of the security had not made a proper demand) or that the security was invalid or not improperly perfected, or that the relevant appointment documents were invalid, or that the relevant notice requirements were not followed.

Limitation- A limitation period of 12 years from the cause of action applies where the document is executed as a deed. This is reduced to six years where the security document is signed under hand.

Conflicting arrangements- Security may not be enforceable if there is an inter-creditor or standstill deed in place governing the enforcement of the security which prohibits or delays enforcement.

Challengeable transactions- A liquidator and an administrator can, in certain circumstances, challenge and have security arrangements set aside, making the security unenforceable. Reviewable transactions include security arrangements that constitute: i) a preference, ii) a transaction at an undervalue; or iii) a (wholly or partly) invalid floating charge.

Briefly, a preference occurs when a debtor has done something or allowed something to be done which has the effect of putting a creditor into a better position in the liquidation, administration or bankruptcy of the debtor than he would have been if the thing had not been done. Such a transaction is challengeable if it was done within 6 months of the insolvency or two years if the relevant parties were connected with debtor (e.g. in the case of  a debtor company, directors, shadow directors, associates of such directors or shadow directors and associates of the company and, in the case of an individual, a relative or life partner of such individual); the debtor was insolvent at the time or as a result of the transaction and the debtor had a desire to put the creditor in a better position than he would have been if the thing had not been done (section 239 Insolvency Act 1986 ( IA )). A classic example of this type of transaction is where the directors of a company have given a guarantee to a bank and then the company gives security for the previously unsecured debt within a short time of the company entering into formal insolvency. From a lender's standpoint, the main point to notice is that the transaction creating the preference has to be done voluntarily so if the lender exerts pressure on the debtor it should never be a preference.

Again briefly, a transaction at an undervalue occurs (section 238 IA) when a debtor enters into a transaction (e.g. a gift or guarantee) for a consideration the value of which, in monetary terms, is significantly less than the value of the consideration provided by the debtor. Such a transaction can be set aside if:

where the debtor is a company, the transaction took place within 2 years before the commencement of its winding-up and the debtor was insolvent or became insolvent as a consequence of entering into the transaction

where the debtor is an individual, the transaction took place within 5 years of the before the commencement of his bankruptcy and , if the bankruptcy occurs in the third, fourth or fifth years, the debtor was insolvent or became insolvent as a consequence of the bankruptcy (i.e. if the bankruptcy occurs within 2 years of the transaction, there is no need for an insolvency practitioner to prove that the debtor was insolvent or became insolvent as a consequence of entering into the transaction).

Where the debtor is a company, there is a defence if it can be shown that :

the debtor entered into the transaction in good faith and for the purpose of carrying out its business; and

when it did so, there were reasonable grounds for believing that the transaction would benefit the company.

When taking a guarantee from a company, it is therefore common practice to do the following:

Detail in the board minutes the benefits to the company in entering into the guarantee (to assist demonstrating that the transaction benefitted the company);

have the entering into the guarantee blessed by a unanimous resolution of the members (to prevent the transaction being ultra vires the directors); and

have the directors make a declaration of solvency (so that , if correct, the transaction could never be a transaction at an undervalue).

The position from the lender's standpoint is more difficult if the debtor is an individual especially if the bankruptcy occurs within the first two years of the transaction.

Under section 245 of the IA a floating charge created by a debtor company will be invalid in its liquidation or administration if it was created in favour of a connected person within 2 years before the commencement of insolvency proceedings or a non-connected person within I year of its administration or liquidation except to the extent of the value of the consideration of the floating charge which comprises money paid, goods or services supplied or debts discharged at the time of or after the creation of such floating charge. The section does not however apply to FCRs (described above).

Undue Influence- Where the security provider can show that he/she entered into the security document whilst under the influence of another, the security will be unenforceable. Undue influence can be implied where there exists a relationship of trust and confidence between the parties to a contract. Certain types of relationship gve rise to a presumption of undue influence and these include parent and child and husbands and wives. The issue for a lender is that if it can be shown that there was undue influence by the debtor on the guarantor even if the lender was unaware of such undue influence, the transaction involving the lender (e.g. a guarantee) can be set aside. If a lender is taking a guarantee in circumstances where there is no commercial relationship between the debtor and the guarantor, a lender needs to protect itself by:

requiring the guarantor take independent legal advice on the guarantee;

providing the guarantor's solicitor with sufficient financial information to be able to advise the guarantor appropriately; and

obtaining confirmation from the solicitor that he/she has advised the guarantor appropriately before the guarantor entered into the guarantee.

(See the leading cases of Barclays Bank v O'Brien [1994] 1 AC 180 and Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge (No 2) [2002] 2 AC 773)

Lien - Statute provides that liens over the books, papers and records of a borrower are unenforceable to the extent that enforcement would deny their possession to a  liquidator and administrator.

XIV. SECURED CREDITORS' POSITION IN INSOLVENCY

Rights to and conditions required to continue/initiate security enforcement in insolvency

Perfection (as previously mentioned) is necessary to ensure that the security has the intended priority over the other creditors of the security provider, although perfection does not always guarantee validity and priority in all circumstances (for example, where a transaction is challengeable by an insolvency practitioner).

Further, when a chargor enters into administration or liquidation, unsecured  creditors must lodge formal notice of the debt owed to them, called a proof of debt, to the administrator or liquidator. A secured creditor can rely entirely on its security and not submit a proof or surrender its security and prove for the whole amount of the debt or place a value on its security and prove for the balance of the debt.

Administration- An automatic moratorium is imposed at the start of the administration which prevents creditors from enforcing security without the consent of the administrator or permission of the court, unless the FCRs apply to the security. A secured creditor is however, generally speaking, entitled to be repaid from the proceeds of sale of the secured assets. It may then claim as an unsecured creditor (who will receive a share of the assets proportionate to the size of the company's debt to the unsecured creditors) for any balance. Note that a company cannot enter into administration if an administrative receiver is in office.

Compulsory Liquidation- Compulsory liquidation provides a moratorium preventing creditors from enforcing security without permission of the court. A liquidator acts primarily in the interests of unsecured creditors and shareholders, but must distribute the assets in accordance with the following priority:

First: Fixed charge holders

Second: Administrators and Liquidators (for expenses in administration or winding up) Note that under the moratorium procedure introduced by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 if a company enters into administration or winding-up within 12 weeks of the end of a Part A1 moratorium, any unpaid moratorium debts or pre-moratorium debts (where the company does not have the benefit of a payment holiday for these) will benefit from super-priority (i.e. they will rank before administration or liquidation expenses).

Third: Ordinary Preferential Debts (e.g. employees' wages), Second Preferential Debts (e.g. claims from HMRC such as VAT, PAYE, employee NICs and Construction Industry Scheme deductions) and then the Prescribed Part up to a maximum of £800,000 for floating charges created on or after 6 April 2020).

Fourth: Floating Charge holders

Fifth: Ordinary unsecured creditors including all other taxes e.g. corporation tax (pro rata)

Sixth: Shareholders (receive any surplus).

Secured creditors' rights in influencing decisions in the creditors assembly

Receivership- The receiver only owes duties to the secured creditor who appointed him; there is no meeting of creditors.

Administration- The views of the secured creditor may be taken into consideration by the court when considering the appointment of the administrator. However, an administrator owes a duty to act in the interests of the creditors as a whole.

Compulsory Liquidation- A secured creditor may be able to exert some influence on the choice of liquidator by voting at creditors meetings, or if appointed to the liquidation committee, may take some limited further control over the liquidator's actions. If you have any questions, please contact Andrew Evans or your usual Banking contact.

Sign up to our email digest

  • Lexis ® Library gnb_contactus_newwindow

LexisNexis Webinars

Offering minimal impact on your working day, covering the hottest topics and bringing the industry's experts to you whenever and wherever you choose, LexisNexis ® Webinars offer the ideal solution for your training needs.

Learning Center Splash

  • Lexis ® Smart Forms gnb_contactus_newwindow

Lexis ® Smart Precedents

Lexis ® Smart Precedents is a quick way to draft accurate precedents so you can be confident your documents are correct, giving you more time to focus on clients.

Learning Center Splash

  • Blogs gnb_contactus_newwindow
  • LexTalk ® UK gnb_contactus_newwindow

--> Topics