Role of Secured Creditors in Business Insolvency - Essay Example

?Running Head: Role of Secured Creditors in Business Insolvency Role of Secured Creditors in Business Insolvency [Institute’s Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 ROLE OF SECURED CREDITORS IN BUSINESS INSOLVENCY 3 Introduction 3 History 4 Theories and Discussion 10 Conclusion 14 References 15 ROLE OF SECURED CREDITORS IN BUSINESS INSOLVENCY Introduction The role of secured creditors in business insolvency1 has always been debatable matter because of varied views of people regarding its benefits to the borrowers and the creditors. On one hand, one considers secured credit facilitates the borrowers by alleviating the difficulties arising from information irregularity in credit markets. On the other hand, it is detrimental for the borrowers who are unable to abide by the terms on which they took the credit2. The security grant provided to the creditors is entirely dependent upon the whether the debtor is able to conform to the loan covenants. In case, the debtor is not in default, the creditor does not have control on the security3. However, if the debtor is in default, the creditor has complete control on the collateral, subject to any limitations imposed by insolvency law. Additionally, the secured creditor gets priority at time of settlement from the sale of security compared to other creditors. If one sees it with a creditor’s point of view, the provision of collateral reduces the default risk of creditor and in return, the debtor expects some valuable terms of loan, which create flexibility for debtor in repayment. One of the valuable terms is less interest payment on secured credit than an unsecured credit4. The priority given to secured creditors in repayment create a less advantageous situation for unsecured creditors, which does not allow them to agree on flexible terms in loan. This often leads to consensus on a higher interest rate in case of unsecured loan. If all these terms are seen with the eyes of a debtor, both secured and unsecured creditors try to reduce their risk by agreeing on particular terms of loan. In one case, there is a grant of security with a reduced interest on loan; in another, there is a higher rate of interest on compensating for no security and less priority. There has always been debate over this matter in the literature and it suggests the debtor not bother much while choosing between the two. History US federal bankruptcy law offers two choices for formal bankruptcy, which are Chapter 7 or Chapter 115. Chapter 7 involves the transfer of control of the firm to a creditor-appointed trustee. In Chapter 11, the debtor’s management usually remains in control of firm during the proceedings. Earlier, debtors had more control in the proceedings of insolvency, which the creditors noticed and did not prefer6. This later led creditors to come up with more strict contracts regarding provision of finance in Chapter 11, which shifted a significant control to the creditors from debtors. Despite this control, chapter 11 is weaker when compared to Recent UK Bankruptcy situations enjoyed by secured creditors. English insolvency law did not factually enforce a stay on the implementation of secured claims. This allowed a secured creditor having an all-encompassing security interest, commonly known in UK as a ‘floating charge’—to impose against the entireness of the debtor firm’s assets. In effect, the floating charge holder (FCH) led to a private liquidation, known as an ‘administrative receivership’ (or ‘receivership’ for short)7. When a company is financially distraught, a secured creditor or court takes the company into receivership. A company is in receivership when a secured creditor or a court appoints a receiver who can control all the assets of the company. The appointment of receiver comes under the security of fixed charge such as land, plan, machinery, equipment etc. It also comes under the security of floating charge such as cash and stock. The receiver can also have right to manage the company matters subject to terms of agreement. In this scenario, one calls it as receiver and manager. The company in receivership can also go into liquidation, provisional liquidation and voluntary administration. The receiver has right to sell charged assets or business of the company adequate to repay the debt to the secured creditors. The receiver’s primary duty is towards secured creditor of the company, the duty towards unsecured creditors is to sell charged property for the price similar to market value. In case, there is not market value, then the receiver should try to sell the asset at best possible price. The receiver has no responsibility to inform the unsecured creditors about receivership by calling or meeting them however, he has to write to company’s supplier to notify them about their appointment. The most popular way in which the receiver is going to get the money from the charged assets of the company is by selling them. The receiver may also obtain money from the sales of a company’s business, until they entirely sell it as going concern. The receiver distributes the money collection from fixed charged assets after deducting the fees and the money used in collection. After deduction, secured creditors have the first right to get the money. In case of collection of money from floating charges, the receiver after deducting the cost and fees of collection has to pay to priority claimants such as employee entitlements if they have not shifted to the new owner. Thirdly, the receiver would pay to secured creditors. Payment to employee entitlements has a particular order8. Firstly, the receiver has to pay outstanding wages and retirement. Secondly, the receiver is liable to pay outstanding leave of absence including sick leave, annual leave, long service leave etc. lastly, he has to give the retrenchment pay. Each category has to get a full payment before going to pay the next category, in case the funds are insufficient to fully satisfy one category, receiver pays the funds on a pro rata basis and the next category gets nothing. The receiver has no responsibility to pay any other unsecured creditors for unsettled pre-appointment arrears. In both cases, if some money has remained after satisfying all the priority claimants, it has to go the company and its administrators (if any). If the appointment of receiver is under both fixed and floating charge, the costs and fees do not deduct directly from realizing the fixed and floating charged assets. The cost depends on the proportion of fixed and floating charged assets. Any borrowings that rise from the receiver approving the buying of goods or services throughout the receivership are costs that the receiver has to deduct as fees from the realisation of assets. If there are inadequate funds generating from asset realisations to pay these costs, the receiver is personally accountable for it9. To have the advantage of this defence, one should confirm to receive a purchase order approved in the manner recommended by the receiver. If the receiver uses, acquire or grip the property possessed by another party that is in the company’s ownership or hold by the company, they have to pay any rent or amounts owed rising after seven days from the commencement of the receivership. The receiver can evade this liability by notifying the other party in seven days from their employment that they do not mean to use the property. The selection of a receiver does not dismiss pre-receivership agreements with the company. If one has such a contract, one may wish to pursue legal advice, as the law in this domain is difficult. It is likely for the contract to continue current without the receiver having personal liability for the company’s duties under the contract. There is a possibility of commencement or continuation of legal acts against the company in spite of the appointment of a receiver. This indicates that an unsecured creditor can smear to the court to have the company put into liquidation based on an unpaid debt. The reasons, for which one might wish to do this, are mainly if the company is obliged to pay a large amount, including an anticipation that there will be money or property available after realisation of the charged security and payments by the receiver; likely retrievals that may be accessible to a liquidator for the advantage of unsecured creditors, which are not accessible to a receiver; a wish for a liquidator to examine potential wrongdoings by those related to the company, or the skill of the liquidator to evaluate the rationality of the appointment of the receiver and of the charge, and to check the development of the receivership. A receivership typically concludes when the receiver has gathered and sold all of the assets or sufficient assets to reimburse the secured creditor, finished all their receivership responsibilities and compensated their receivership obligations10. Usually, the receiver leaves or is discharged by the secured creditor. Except another external administrator has been selected, full control of the company and any remaining assets goes back to the directors. When English law was adapted in 1985 to comprise a stay on the implementation of all security, in a new ‘administration’ procedure, The Floating Charge Holders obtained a veto over the commencing of administration proceedings. The outcome was that a creditor with a floating charge still had freed control rights over the selection of a receiver. In the English system, firms chose the private liquidation procedure by writing a contract with a secured creditor, which allowed a floating charge11. The receivership system gained huge criticism in the UK because of giving decision rights to the secured creditors. Where the worth of the firm’s assets was more than the amount of secured debt payable, then the secured creditor would not be the remaining claimant. Rather, they would, have an advantage to get repayment of their money as soon as possible. Arguments rose that this would lead to a quicker liquidation of firm and in favor of its discontinuation. In addition, in case the value of firm’s assets would be less than the secured loan payable, secured creditors would be the residual claimant. Another criticism for receivership system was that it allowed sale of assets rather than reorganization of businesses, because of this, there was an apprehension that good companies might end up closing their businesses12. As the receivership system was not up to the mark and created many problems, the UK Government in 2001 came up with a modified system with two major changes. Firstly, the right of a Floating Charge Holder13 to assign an administrative receiver eliminated. Rather, FCHs now got the entitlement to appoint an administrator out of court. This was mainly for preserving the value of small management firms and giving a concerted creditor the control to initiate bankruptcy proceedings and change management very quickly. The second significant change was to alter the administration procedure. Previously, it comprised a stay of all claims, secured and unsecured. However, the administrator now openly focuses the decision-making process towards the value maximization14. Administrator’s correct analysis and assessment of firm’s value at beginning of official proceedings would ensure this value maximization. The administrator should perform his duties for the best interest of company’s creditors and must be as efficient and quick as possible. Nevertheless, uncertainties have upraised as to whether these new legal mechanisms of answerability will lead to a significant progress for unsecured creditors. Firstly, the the secured creditors still have substantial control over rescue proceedings. The FCH will mostly be accountable for the selection and hiring of the administrator15. Banks normally operate ‘panels’ for the appointment of accountants to work as their insolvency consultants, which will levy reputational restraints on the latter’s’ actions: those appointees who take steps opposing to the banks’ interests in the course of a selection may presume not to be appointed again. More importantly, the new system has nothing to say about ‘statutory super-priority’ granted to those proceeding funds to the bankrupt firm. Thus, the company’s existing bankers will have control of capital during administration proceedings16. This will make it practically unbearable in many cases for an administrator, even if so inclined, to attain an outcome conflicting to what the secured creditor desires. Secondly, it will be problematic to peacefully breach the new legal duties, because they enclose in such a way as to give the administrator the advantage of a large business judgment rule. A pre-pack is a new debatable business practice in relation to the sale of the business in insolvency, which has appeared within the pre-existing UK legal system since the end of 2001. By 2004, pre-packs utilization was in more than 16% of bankruptcy cases. In a pre-pack, the chief bank or one of the managers of a company in financial distress (with the contract of the main bank) calls in an insolvency practitioner (IP). The IP attempts to recognize inconspicuously if there are any parties that may be intending to buy the company17. If he identifies the potential buyer (he can also be the previous manager or owner of the company/business) the IP is openly chosen as administrator/receiver and directly sells the company to the purchaser18. The business (typically having the employees) works under the name of a new company and the incomes from the sale are utilized to pay back creditors in the original order of priority. Theories and Discussion Authors have written various theories to support the two kinds of credits i.e. secured and unsecured. There are “Efficiency” theories to support secured credit while “redistributive” theories support Unsecured Credit. Signaling Theory Signaling Theory suggests that offering a security signals the seriousness and trustworthiness of a borrower because it would be costly for a low-quality borrower to offer a security than a high quality borrower. It would help creditors to select the most trustworthy and committed borrowers whom they could give a loan19. If one judges it on empirical evidence, then it acts exactly opposite to what it suggests. In reality, usually newer and smaller firms, which do not have credibility, offer the security. Signaling theory proves wrong in reality because usually it one assumes that it is highly risky for the debtor to offer a security because there is a threat of losing the collateral and this threat is more for less trustworthy debtors as the possibility of losing the collateral is higher. Nevertheless, for debtors there is no difference in consequences of secured or unsecured credit in case of default because in both cases the debtor’s property will be snatched by creditors20. The advantage of being a secured creditors is not against debtor rather other creditors because of having right to be settled for repayment on a priority basis. A debtor would only be able to feel the difference between secured and unsecured credit if there is no default at all. Secured borrowing gives creditors rights to take over the assets, which unsecured creditors do not have21. This indicates that the marginal cost to the debtor of offering security, versus borrowing unsecured, is consequently reducing with the possibility of default, since the ‘cost’ is only incurred so long as the borrower does not default. It means that earlier the application of the signaling theory in the literature was wrongly stated, it developed the opposite prediction. If, correctly stated, readiness on the borrower’s end might be a signal of lack of quality. Financial Agency Costs Secured lending22 does not allow debtors to involve in activities that might be harmful to creditor’s concern. Secured lending prevents creditors to suffer from “Financial Agency Cost”, this cost might incur due to personal interests of shareholders or managers. At times, when the business is financially distraught, shareholders or managers tend to involve in projects that are highly risky merely based on less chance of its turning out to be profitable. In secured lending, the managers do not have to sell the assets to fund such risky projects neither are they allowed to borrow further to run these projects23. Secured lending gives priority to the existing creditors to the firm’s assets; this would enable new creditors to look carefully into the ventures the business is going to undertake before lending the money. Based on ‘Financial Agency Costs’, the security offering is hence a bond by the debtor not to involve in wealth-reducing ventures. This bond is beneficial for the debtor, because it prevents them from going into such transactions, which increases its borrowing capacity. According to this theory, security strictly in connection with function to loan agreements and contractual priority procedures that levy constraints on the borrower’s freedom of action that may be defensible as bonds in contradiction of wealth-reducing businesses. In both cases, the debtors should only agree to terms of loans if the advantages to the debtors offset the costs. Henceforth one would expect more from riskier firms that are more disposed to financial agency costs, to use loan agreements and security24. In this way, the effectiveness of secured creditors lies in its benefits on top of its contractual agreements. As security generates exclusive rights, it is ‘self-enriching ’, whereas loan covenants are not. Security is different from loan covenants in another way, too; it assigns control (subject to limitations implied by insolvency law) over the enforcement process25. This allows creditors to allot control over enforcement to those best-placed to exploit the value realized, and to discourage other creditors to involve in an uneconomical ‘race to collect’ when the borrower is in financial trouble. Consequently, the firms which are riskier and about which the creditors have least information should only offer security. Risky firms are more expected to default, and therefore more likely to go into bankruptcy proceedings. Redistribution of Wealth Use of secured credit will lead to transfer of wealth from one party to another. The secured loan has a lower interest rate indicating a lesser risk born by the debtor. Comparatively, an unsecured creditor is less fortunate if his borrower has offered collateral to another creditor. Hence, except unsecured creditors adjust the terms of agreement to compensate for higher risk, the grant of collateral leads to a transfer of wealth from unsecured creditor to borrower26. Debtor gets a reduced rate of interest by borrowing secured credit; however the unsecured creditor bear the cost if he does not adjust the terms keeping his advantages in mind. Discussion All the theories discussed above suggest that debtors grant security to get a reduced interest rate. However, the secured loan given by Banks in United Kingdom, France and Germany are with the interest rate similar to those of unsecured loans27. This indicates the extent to which the theories are associated with reality as the theorists write these theories citrus peribus i.e. keeping all other things constant. Both the theories discussed above are valuable relating to riskier debtors. Security and higher interest rates are associated with riskier debtor therefore secured loans are allied to higher interest rates. Nonetheless, the suitable assessment is with the terms on which one would get unsecured credit28. Studies29 have shown that borrowing on a secured basis reduces the cost of credit for borrowers. A study of relation between UK banks and distressed debtors reports that secured loan is associated with the personal security by company directors. Such securities prevent creditors from being harmed by inappropriate behavior of debtor. On the other hand, it is argued that this security is mere a way of transferring wealth from non-adjusting unsecured creditors to debtors. Hence, it is possible that at times grant of security is harmful to non-adjusting unsecured creditors but its beneficial aspects are more evident. Conclusion Of the theories discussed in this paper, the most reasonable is one, which suggests that it prevents debtors from ruining the interests of secured creditors and taking on high risk projects. This theory implies the social benefits of secured credit. Whereas, the empirical evidences are in favor of redistribution of wealth from unsecured creditors to the debtors. The control enjoyed by secured creditors can have two important impacts on the determination of financial destruction in small businesses30. On one hand it can decrease the costs of financial destruction on the other hand it may also give a chance to secured creditors and business proprietors to conspire in order to avert value from junior creditors. Great concerns have upraised about possible conflicts of interest, particularly when the business is sold to an associated party, in the framework of US state procedures in which a large number of young businesses are reorganized. The UK pre-packs provide another form of this trade-off: a pre-pack diminishes the costs, eliminating all the limitations to achieve a quick sale, but also increases the risk of complicity. Here the bankruptcy practitioner, chosen by the secured creditor, can sell a company without asking the court or discussing with junior creditors31. In the UK, there is not even a lawful obligation of conducting a public auction in contrast to US. In spite of the extensive criticism associated to the lack of pellucidity that pre-packs, and particularly pre-packs to allied parties, there is no proof of misuse of conflict of interests by the bankruptcy practitioner under the course of the floating charge holder32. These regulations appear to be in use to maintain the value of the business: the sales to a connected party are pre-packaged in cases where the value of intangible assets, status and staffs is mostly great. In these conditions, revealing the firm to the market would result in evaporation of value and growth of the business. These “contested” transactions have better recovery rate than other alternative regulations. The supposed costs of conspiracy between secured creditors and owners to avert value from junior creditors are not very large. In small businesses where secured creditors are concerted, the advantages of their control seem to offset the costs. In the U.K., the floating charge works fine, there are no incompetent runs and UK banks do not seem to choose automatic liquidation upon defilement of debt agreements rather try to release the company33. Here it shows that, once in insolvency, floating charge holders have a good advantage to sell the business as a going concern as quickly as possible rather than selling it fragmentary in order to accelerate their own retrieval. The more the limitations enforced on the floating charge holder the faster it sells the business, the more the value it achieves and the more industries can be conserved as going concerns. References Athreya, K, Bankruptcy and Delinquency in a Model of Unsecured. 1-51 (OUP 2008) Buckwold, T. M., Holding The High Ground: The Position of Secured Creditors in Consumer Bankruptcies. Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 278-306 (1999) Crown Financial Ministries, Bankruptcy (2009) http://www.thebalmingilead.org/forms/Economic%20Empowerment/Bankruptcy.pdf accessed 16 December 2013 Cumming, D., The Oxford Handbook of Entrepreneurial Finance (OUP 2012) 610-615 Dodds, D., Debt in Bankruptcy: Secured vs. Unsecured (2012) http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/debt-in-bankruptcy-secured-vs-unsecure-74748/ accessed 16 December 2013 Francis, C., Unsecured vs Secured Loans (2008) http://www.moneysupermarket.com/c/unsecured-loans/secured-loans/guide/ accessed 16 December 2013 Frey, Martin A., Introduction to Bankruptcy Law (6th Edition Cengage Learning) 97 Irby, L., How Secured Loans Are Different From Unsecured Loans (2009) http://credit.about.com/ accessed 16 December 2013 John, A., Audrey, H., & Adrian, W., The Costs and Benefits of Secured Creditor Control in Bankruptcy: Evidence from the UK. Centre for Business Research, University Of Cambridge, 1-38 (2006). John, A., The Law and Economics Debate about Secured Lending: Lessons for European Lawmaking? Centre for Business Research, University Of Cambridge, 1-37 (2008) Kartik, A., Juan, M. S., Xuan, S., & Young, T. E., Bankruptcy and Delinquency in a Model of Unsecured Debt (n.d. OUP) Langridge, S. How to Consolidate Loans (n.d.) < http://www.wikihow.com/Consolidate-Loans> accessed 16 December 2013 LoPuckli, L. M., The Unsecured Creditor's Bargain. HeinOnline, 1887-1965 (1889) Marina, V., Alfred, G., & Adam, S., Household Debt in the U.S.: 2000 to 2011 (n.d.) http://www.census.gov/people/wealth/files/Debt%20Highlights%202011.pdf accessed 16 December 2013 Nolo, What Happens to Unsecured Debt in Chapter 13 Bankruptcy? accessed 16 December 2013 Oriaachtes Liabrary and Research Service, Debt Part 2: Personal Debt and Consequences. Spotlight, 1-20 (2010) PILCH, The Consequences of Individual Bankruptcy. 1-5 (2005). Platt, Harlan D., Principles of Corporate Renewal (University of Michigan Press 2004) 65-68 Polo, A., Secured Creditor Control in Bankruptcy: Costs and Conflict. Said Business School, University of Oxford, 1-47 (OUP 2012) Receivership, Australian Securities and Information Comission, 1-5. (OUP 2008). Report to the Congress on Secured Creditor Haircuts, Financial Stability Oversight Council, 1-45. (2011 Congress on Secured Creditor Haircuts) Rush, J and Ottley, M., Business Law (Cengage Learning 2006) 225 School, Y. L., Vacuum of Fact Or Vacuous Theory: A Reply to Professor Kripke. Yale Law School, 987-1001 (1985) Secured Debt & Property in Chapter 7 Bankruptcy (n.d.) accessed 16 December 2013 The Differences Between Secured Debt and Unsecured Debt (n.d.) accessed 16 December 2013 Wangru, F., Debt. Holioman, 1-8 (OUP 2008) Wellish, S. Secured Loans Compared to Unsecured Loans (n.d.) accessed 16 December 2013 Westbrook, Jay L., A Global View of Business Insolvency Systems (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2010) 70-74 What is Bankruptcy? (2012) < http://www.nhbar.org/uploads/pdf/pipbankruptcy.pdf> accessed 16 December 2013 What is Secured and Unsecured Debt in Bankruptcy? Why Does it Matter? (n.d.) < http://www.simonresnik.com/legal-articles/what-is-secured-and-unsecured-debt-in-bankruptcy-why-does-it-matter.shtml> accessed 16 December 2013 Your Debts and Creditors, (n.d.) accessed 16 December 2013 Read More