|
A floating charge is a security interest over all of the assets of a company which 'floats' until an event of default is triggered or until the company goes into insolvent liquidation at which time the floating charge crystallises and attaches to all of the assets of the company. Floating charges can only be granted by companies. If an individual person or a partnership was to purport to grant a floating charge, it would be void as a general assignment in bankruptcy. Floating charges take effect in equity only, and consequently are defeated by a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of any asset caught by them. In practice, as the chargor has power to dispose of assets under a floating charge, this is only of any consequence in relation to disposals after the charge has crystallised.
Definition Although the nature of a floating charge has been widely considered by the courts, historically no full definition has ever been given (a description was given in Re Yorkshire Woolcombers Association 1903 2 Ch 284 - which has been widely used since – but Romer LJ stated in that case that he did not intend to give a definition of the term floating charge). In that case the description was: In keeping with that tradition, in National Westminster bank plc v Spectrum Plus Limited and others 2005 UKHL 41, the House of Lords elected instead to describe the essential characteristic of a floating charge, and they described it thus: "the asset subject to the charge is not finally appropriated as a security for the payment of the debt until the occurrence of some future event. In the meantime the chargor is left free to use the charged asset and to remove it from the security." History Historically, floating charges are a fascinating concept in that they are legal devices created entirely by lawyers in private practice; there is no legislation and no judicial decision which was the genesis of a floating charge. In 1862 in an apparently unconnected decision of Holroyd v Marshall (1862) 10 HL Cas 191 it was held that equity would recognise a charge over after-acquired property as being effective to create a security interest over that property automatically upon its acquisition. This decision lead to "a further manifestation of the English genius for harnessing the most abstract conceptions to the service of commerce." Documents came to be drafted which purported to grant security over all of the debtor's present and future property, but by contract expressly permitted the debtor to dispose of those assets, free from the charge, until such times as the debtor's business ceased. This charge came to be known as the "floating charge". The first case in which a floating security device was tested and upheld came a mere eight years after Holroyd v Marshall in Re Panama, New Zealand and Australian Royal Mint Company (1870) 5 Ch App 318; a remarkably quick gestation by any reckoning. The Court of Appeal held that the effect of the document was that the secured creditor could not interfere with the running of the business until and its dealings with its own assets until the winding up of the company, but the occurrence of that event entitled the secured creditor to realise its security over the assets and to assert its charge in priority to the general body of creditors Flexibility Floating charges are enormously popular as a security device for two principle reasons. From the secured creditor's perspective, the security will cover each and every asset of the chargor. From the chargor's perspective, although all of their assets are encumbered, because the security "floats", they remain free to deal with the assets and dispose of them in the ordinary course of business, thereby obtaining the maximum credit benefit from the lender, but without the inconvenience of requiring the secured creditor's consent to dispose of stock in trade. However, in many jurisdictions, floating charges are required to be registered in order to perfect them; otherwise they may be unenforceable on the bankruptcy of the debtor. This registration requirement has often led to other property rights (such as rights under a defective retention of title clause) which have been recharacterised as a floating charge being held to be void for non-registration. Remedies Broadly speaking, holding a floating charge gives the secured creditor two key remedies in the event of non-payment of the secured debt by the company. Firstly, the secured creditor can crystallise the charge, and then sell of any assets which the charge then attaches to as if the charge was a fixed charge. Secondly (and more frequently the case, to preserve the company as a going concern), if the floating charge encompasses substantially all of the assets and undertaking of the company, the secured creditor can appoint an administrative receiver to take over the management and control of the business with a view to discharging the debt out of income or selling off the entire business as a going concern. In countries that permit the making of an administration order, the floating charge had another key benefit. The holder of a floating charge could appoint an administrative receiver and block the appointment of a court appointed administrator, and thus retain control of the distribution of the assets of the company. Practice became such that companies were asked to give "lightweight" floating charges to secured lenders which had no collateral value purely to allow the holders to block administration orders, an approach which was approved by the courts in Re Croftbell Ltd 1990 BCC 781. In the United Kingdom the law has now been changed by statute, but the power to block appointments of administrators has been retained in many other common law jurisdictions. Priority The main purpose of any security is to enable the secured creditor to have priority of claim to the bankrupt party's assets in the event of an insolvency. However, because of the nature of floating charge, the priority of floating charge holder's claims normally rank behind: The floating charge cannot normally be enforced until it has crystallised (and thus, effectively, become a fixed charge) and so most statutes provide that the priority of a fixed charge which was created as a floating charge is treated as a floating charge. Because of the differences in priority of fixed charges and floating charges, security documents came to be drafted to contain as many charges expressed to be fixed charges as possible, and leave as little as possible covered by the floating charge, where it would have secondary priority to the claims of the preferred creditors. A number of judicial decisions gave conflicting interpretations over the characteristics that were definitive of a fixed charge, particularly with reference to charges over book debts (and a fixed charge which did not contain those characteristics would be "recharacterised" as a floating charge). The position was definitively resolved in NatWest v Spectrum Plus Limited when the House of Lords confirmed that a charge over book debts could be a fixed charge, provided that the secured creditor exhibited the necessary degree of control over the proceeds of the book debts. This would normally require that they either be paid into a blocked account, or that they be paid directly to the secured creditor. Any lesser degree of control was not consistent with a fixed charge, and such charges would be construed as floating charges, regardless of what label the parties had given them. See also: Liquidation - Priority of claims Criticisms Floating charges have been criticised as a "raw deal" for unsecured creditors.* As most secured lenders will not usually have recourse to their security until things are very bad for the debtor company, the usual position is that even all the remaining assets of the company are not enough to repay the debt secured by the floating charge, leaving the unsecured creditors with nothing. This perception has lead to a widening of the classes of preferred creditors who take ahead of the floating charge holders in a number of countries. Some countries have also sought to "ring fence" recoveries made for wrongful trading or fraudulent trading from the floating charge to create an artificial pool of assets available to the unsecured creditors. Analogous concept in the United States The analogous concept in the United States to the floating charge is the floating lien. Analogous concept in Quebec civil law When the new Civil Code of Quebec replaced the Civil Code of Lower Canada in 1994, a concept analogous to the floating charge was introduced into Quebec's civil law under the name floating hypothec. See also Footnotes | ||||||||
|
| |||||||||
 |
|
| |