Hubbry Logo
Floating chargeFloating chargeMain
Open search
Floating charge
Community hub
Floating charge
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Floating charge
Floating charge
Floating charge
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

In finance, a floating charge is a security interest over a fund of changing assets of a company or other legal person. Unlike a fixed charge, which is created over ascertained and definite property, a floating charge is created over property of an ambulatory and shifting nature, such as receivables and stock.

The floating charge 'floats' or 'hovers' until the point at which it is converted ("crystallised") into a fixed charge, attached to specific assets of the business. This crystallisation can be triggered by a number of events. In most common law jurisdictions it is an implied term in the security documents creating floating charges that a cessation of the company's right to deal with the assets (including by reason of insolvency proceedings) in the ordinary course of business leads to automatic crystallisation. Additionally, security documents will usually include express terms that a default by the person granting the security will trigger crystallisation.

In most countries floating charges can only be granted by companies. If an individual person or a partnership[a] was to try to grant a floating charge, then in most jurisdictions which recognise floating charges this would be void as a general assignment in bankruptcy.[b]

Floating charges take effect in equity only, and consequently are defeated by a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of any asset covered by them. In practice, as the charger has power to dispose of assets subject to a floating charge, so this is only of consequence in relation to disposals that occur after the charge has crystallised.

History

[edit]

The floating charge has been described as "one of equity's most brilliant creations".[1] They are legal devices created entirely by lawyers in private practice; there is no legislation or judicial decision that was the genesis of a floating charge.

In 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".[2] Documents came to be drafted that 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 recorded English case where a floating charge was recognised was Re Panama, New Zealand, and Australian Royal Mail Co (1870) 5 Ch App 318. 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 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.

The use of such floating charges increased in popularity and expanded rapidly until, as Lord Walker described it: "The floating charge had become a cuckoo in the nest of corporate insolvency."[3] Criticism of the effect of floating charges grew, until Lord Macnaghten finally proclaimed in Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1896] UKHL 1, [1897] AC 22:[4]

For such a catastrophe as has occurred in this case some would blame the law that allows the creation of a floating charge. But a floating charge is too convenient a form of security to be lightly abolished. I have long thought, and I believe some of your Lordships also think, that the ordinary trade creditors of a trading company ought to have a preferential claim on the assets in liquidation in respect of debts incurred within a certain limited time before the winding-up. But that is not the law at present. Everybody knows that when there is a winding-up debenture-holders generally step in and sweep off everything; and a great scandal it is. (emphasis added)

This led to a push back against the effect of floating charges in the form of the Preferential Payments in Bankruptcy Amendment Act 1897.

Definition

[edit]
"A floating security is an equitable charge on the assets for the time being of a going concern. It attaches to the subject charged in the varying condition in which it happens to be from time to time. It is the essence of such a charge that it remains dormant until the undertaking ceases to be a going concern, or until the person in whose favour the charge is created intervenes. His right to intervene may of course be suspended by agreement. But if there is no agreement for suspension, he may exercise his right whenever he pleases after default."

Later in Illingworth v Houldsworth [1904] AC 355 at 358 he stated:

"...a floating charge is ambulatory and shifting in nature, hovering over and so to speak floating with the property which it is intended to affect until some event occurs or some act is done which causes it to settle and fasten on the subject of the charge within its reach and grasp."

A description was subsequently given in Re Yorkshire Woolcombers Association [1903] 2 Ch 284, and despite Romer LJ clearly stating in that case that he did not intend to give a definition of the term floating charge, his description is generally cited as the most authoritative definition of what a floating charge is:

  • it is a charge over a class of assets present and future;
  • that class will be changing from time to time; and
  • until the charge crystallises and attaches to the assets, the chargor may carry on its business in the ordinary way.

When conducting a recent review of the authorities, the House of Lords brought some clarity to this area of law in National Westminster bank plc v Spectrum Plus Ltd [2005] UKHL 41. The essential test of whether a charge was a fixed charge related to the chargor's power to continue to deal with the asset. In order to preserve the status of a charge as a fixed one, the bank must exercise actual control over disposal of the asset. If the chargor is able to deal with the asset, such as by drawing from the account in which charged funds are kept, or into which the proceeds of trade receivables are deposited, then the holder of the charge does not have effective control. They said:

"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."

Nature of the chargee's interest

[edit]

Several authors[5] have suggested that the floating chargee, prior to crystallisation, may have no proprietary interest at all in the charged assets. However, this is inconsistent with cases (such as Spectrum) at the highest level which suggest a proprietary interest does exist.

Alternatively, the floating chargee may have an inchoate type of proprietary interest, with characteristics that are proprietary but of a lesser order than the proprietary interest of a chargee with a fixed charge. Some authors have suggested that there is an interest in a fund of assets,[6] but the nature and incidents of the interest remain unclear. This has received some judicial support, from Lord Walker in Spectrum, for example.

Another possibility is that the holder of a floating charge may have the same quality of proprietary interest as a fixed chargee, but one that is subject to defeasance[7] or overreaching[8] by permitted dealings by the chargor with the charged assets.

Flexibility

[edit]

Floating charges are popular as a security device for two principal reasons. From the secured creditor's perspective, the security will cover each and every asset of the chargor. From the charger'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 re-characterized as a floating charge being held to be void for non-registration.

Remedies

[edit]

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 off any assets that 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 that 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.

Crystallisation

[edit]

Strictly speaking, it is not possible to enforce a floating charge at all - the charge must first crystallise into a fixed charge. In the absence of any special provisions in the relevant document, a floating charge crystallises either upon the appointment of a receiver or upon the commencement of liquidation.[9] It has also been suggested, relying upon obiter dictum comments by Lord Macnaghten in Government Stocks and Securities Investments Co Ltd v Manila Rly Co that a charge should also crystallise upon the company ceasing to trade as a going concern.[10] However, this view is not yet supported by judicial authority.[11]

In certain countries, notably Australia and New Zealand, it was for a time very common to include "automatic crystallisation" provisions which would provide that the floating charge would crystallise upon an event of default automatically and without action from the chargee. Automatic crystallisation provisions have been upheld in New Zealand[12] but there are judicial comments suggesting they may not be recognised as effective in Canada.[13] In the United Kingdom there is some inferential support for the validity of automatic crystallisation provisions,[14] but they have never been subject to full judicial consideration.

Priority

[edit]
See also: Liquidation - Priority of claims

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:

  1. holders of fixed security (such as a mortgage or fixed charge);[15] and
  2. preferential creditors, who are given priority by statute.[16]

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 that was created as a floating charge is treated as a floating charge.[17]

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 preferential creditors. A number of judicial decisions[18] 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 that 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.

Criticisms

[edit]

Floating charges have been criticised as a "raw deal" for unsecured creditors.[19] In Salomon v. Salomon & Co. [1897] AC 22 Lord Macnaghten observed that the injustice of the case (as he saw it) was not caused by the introduction of the concept of limited liability, but by the excessive security created by the floating charge. In Re London Pressed Hinge Co Ltd [1905] 1 Ch 576 Buckley J observed that great mischief arose from the very nature of the floating charge as few of general unsecured trade creditors of the company would even be aware of its existence.

As most secured lenders will not usually have recourse to their security until the debtor company is in a parlous financial state, 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 led to a widening of the classes of preferred creditors who take ahead of the floating charge holders in a number of countries. The introduction of a regime of voidable floating charges for floating charges taken just prior to the onset of insolvency is a partial response to these criticisms.

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.

Voidable floating charges

[edit]
Main article: Voidable floating charge

Because of the potential for abuse of a security interest that catches all of a company's assets, many jurisdictions have enacted provisions in their insolvency legislation providing that a floating charge granted shortly prior to the company going into liquidation will be invalid, or invalid to the extent that it does not secure new loans made to the company.

Registration

[edit]

In many jurisdictions, because of their dramatic effect on the availability of assets to unsecured creditors on an insolvency, floating charges are required to be registered.[20]

Analogous security interests

[edit]

United States

[edit]

An analogous (but not identical) concept in the United States to the floating charge is the floating lien, which was implemented by Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code and is a lien that expanded to cover any additional property that is acquired by the lienee while the debt is outstanding. A critical difference between the floating charge and the floating lien is that UCC security interests, including floating liens, can be granted by any kind of debtor, including individuals or partnerships (and will thus have priority in bankruptcy), whereas the floating charge can be granted only by corporate entities.

The U.S. never adopted the floating charge directly because at the time it was developing in England in the 19th century, U.S. courts generally held that a debtor simply could not create a security interest in future property; general creditors ought to have a pool of unencumbered assets to look to; and even if such a thing could exist, it was a fraudulent conveyance.[21] However, creditors' lawyers gradually developed a diverse variety of methods, some authorized by state legislatures and others tolerated by state courts, to evade the general ban on security interests in future property. As it had become clear that creditors and debtors were going to find ways to create enforceable de facto security interests in after-acquired property and general intangibles whether courts liked it or not, the UCC drafters in the 1940s (particularly Grant Gilmore) successfully argued that such interests should be legitimized and simplified in the form of the floating lien.

Quebec

[edit]

When the Quebec Civil Code came into force in 1994 and superseded the Civil Code of Lower Canada, it abolished the charge flottante "floating charge" and created and introduced an analogous security device into Quebec law under the name hypothèque ouverte, or "floating mortgage". As a mortgage, it can be taken over immovables and movables (real and personal property); must be in due form, i.e. passed before a notary and registered; confers rights in rem including priority ranking, right of pursuit (that is, it runs with the land and cannot be defeated by a bona fide purchaser), creditor's consent required to dispose of subject; and grants powers of recourse, including repossession, judicial foreclosure, sale by mortgagee in possession, or administrative receivership.

The floating mortgage can be specific or general with respect to immovables and movables, separately or together. The mortgage is not perfected until it crystallises. Crystallisation occurs upon default of the mortgagor and registration of a notice of default, and the mortgage ranks from the date notice is filed. This means that a floating mortgage ranks lower than a fixed mortgage.[22]

Civil law countries

[edit]

Civil law countries generally allow for a commercial pledge to be taken over the pooled movable assets held or acquired for the use of a business or income-producing activity (going concern) and not for sale. The pool is restricted to movable (personal) property of a long-term nature and of value to the operation of the business, specifically inventory and fixed assets, which include movable tangibles such as trade fixtures, equipment, machinery, tools, furniture; and legal intangibles such as company style (name), logos, goodwill, intellectual property, leases.

The pledge never crystallises like a floating charge; instead the pool is a universitas rerum and treated as a single movable security subject. The asset pool is referred to as a fonds de commerce (French), fondo de comercio (Spanish), fondo di commercio (Italian), Geschäftsfonds (German), handelsfonds (Dutch), and so on.

Besides the class of assets secured, the civilian commercial pledge differs from a floating charge in that fixed assets are not always changing, and the creditor ranks prior to all secured and unsecured claims.[23] Commercial pledges exist in common law countries but are usually taken over working capital (floating assets and investments).

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Floating charge

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A floating charge is a form of under whereby a grants a rights over a defined class of its present and future assets, such as stock-in-trade or receivables, that "floats" above those assets without immediately attaching to any specific , thereby allowing the to continue using, selling, or replacing the assets in the ordinary course of its business until a specified event triggers . This mechanism is typically embedded in a , a document that may include both fixed and floating charges to secure loans or other obligations. Originating from principles and now governed by statute, floating charges provide lenders with flexible protection over fluctuating business assets while preserving operational freedom for the borrower until enforcement is necessary. In contrast to a fixed charge, which immediately encumbers identifiable assets and prohibits their disposal without the creditor's , a floating charge defers attachment to enable continuity, making it particularly suitable for dynamic asset pools like or book debts. The characterization as fixed or floating depends on the degree of control the creditor exercises over the assets; insufficient restrictions may reclassify an intended fixed charge as floating, as affirmed in cases like Re Spectrum Plus Ltd UKHL 41. Floating charges extend to the company's entire undertaking or a portion thereof, covering assets acquired after creation, and are commonly used by banks and other financiers in commercial lending. To be effective, a floating charge must be created in writing and registered at within 21 days of its execution, as required by Part 25 of the ; non-registration renders the charge void against liquidators, administrators, and other creditors, though it remains valid between the parties. The registration includes particulars such as the charge's date, the property described, the secured amount, and any restrictions, with the full instrument delivered to the registrar. This public filing ensures transparency and priority notice to third parties. Crystallization converts the floating charge into a fixed one, attaching it to the assets in existence at that moment and halting further dealings; triggers include the company's , cessation of , or explicit from the , often outlined in the . Upon crystallization, the creditor may enforce rights, such as appointing an administrator under the Insolvency Act 1986 or, for qualifying charges created before 15 September 2003, an administrative receiver, though the Enterprise Act 2002 limited administrative receivership to specific exceptions including capital market arrangements, public-private partnerships, utilities projects, urban regeneration projects, development finance agreements, and . In insolvency proceedings, rank below fixed charges, administrative expenses, preferential debts (including certain employee claims and HMRC arrears since December ), and the "prescribed part" ring-fenced for unsecured creditors (up to £800,000 for floating charges created on or after 6 , or £600,000 otherwise), reflecting their junior status due to the borrower's prior freedom to dispose of assets. This subordinated position underscores the trade-off for flexibility, with recent judicial developments emphasizing precise drafting to avoid unintended recharacterization, especially for intangible assets like . While primarily a feature of English and , analogous concepts exist in (with distinct registration via the Register of Floating Charges) and other jurisdictions.

Introduction and History

Definition

A floating charge is a form of granted by a over a class of its present and future assets, which remains unfixed and "floats" over those assets until a specified event causes it to crystallize, thereby enabling the chargor to continue dealing with the assets in the ordinary course of business in the interim. This mechanism provides lenders with protection against default while preserving the borrower's operational flexibility, particularly for dynamic . Essential elements of a floating charge include its attachment to a fluctuating pool of assets, such as , receivables, or other circulating capital, without immediate fixation to any specific items within that pool. Unlike more rigid securities, it does not prohibit the chargor from selling, exchanging, or replacing assets in the ordinary course, and in proceedings, proceeds from such assets are subject to subordination in favor of certain preferential creditors, including employee claims and specific taxes. In contrast to a fixed charge, which creates an immediate and specific on identifiable assets and restricts the chargor from disposing of them without the chargeholder's , a floating charge permits such dispositions until occurs, reflecting its adaptable nature suited to needs. Originating in English during the to support industrial financing amid rapid economic expansion, the floating charge has been extended to other jurisdictions, including , , and (excluding , which follows civil law).

Historical Development

The concept of the floating charge emerged in the mid- amid the Industrial Revolution's demands for flexible trade financing, enabling businesses to secure loans against shifting assets like and receivables without halting operations. This innovation addressed the limitations of fixed charges, which restricted asset use, by allowing companies to grant security over present and future property that could fluctuate in the ordinary course of business. The doctrine's judicial foundations were laid in English , with the Court of Appeal first recognizing the floating charge in Re Panama, New Zealand, and Australian Royal Mail Co (1870) 5 Ch App 318, where a created a over the company's undertaking that permitted continued trading until intervention by the chargee. This "floating" idea was further clarified in Re Yorkshire Woolcombers Association Ltd 2 Ch 284, where Romer LJ outlined its key features: a charge over a class of present and future assets that changes over time, with the company free to deal with them until the charge "attaches" or crystallizes. The landmark affirmation came in Illingworth v Houldsworth AC 355, the appeal from the Woolcombers case, which solidified the distinction from fixed charges and established the floating charge as a valid , emphasizing its non-accession to specific assets during the company's operations. Statutory codification began in the UK with the Companies Act 1900, which introduced registration requirements for floating charges to provide public notice, followed by consolidation in the Companies Act 1948 that formalized their treatment in corporate insolvency. In common law jurisdictions influenced by English law, adaptations included Canada's post-Confederation developments from the 1870s onward, where provincial and federal insolvency laws incorporated floating charges to support industrial financing, as seen in early Bank Act provisions allowing banks to take such security over goods. Australia enshrined the concept in the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), which defines and regulates floating charges within corporate restructuring frameworks, while New Zealand's Companies Act 1993 statutorily enabled their creation over company assets, replacing prior common law reliance. The 20th century saw evolutionary responses to economic pressures, particularly the 1929 , which highlighted vulnerabilities of unsecured creditors and prompted reforms to priority rules; for instance, UK courts in cases like Re Lewis Merthyr Consolidated Collieries Ltd 1 Ch 498 affirmed that certain unsecured claims, such as employee wages, took precedence over floating charge realizations to mitigate hardships. These adjustments influenced subsequent , balancing secured lender interests with protections for preferential unsecured creditors amid widespread corporate failures. As of 2025, the has seen no major doctrinal reforms to floating charges since the , which streamlined registration but preserved core principles, though 2013 regulations under that Act unified filing procedures across charge types. In contrast, Australia's Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) modernized the regime by subsuming floating charges into a unitary "" framework, introducing a national online register (PPSR) for perfection and priority determination, thereby enhancing efficiency over pre-2009 state-based systems.

Core Characteristics

Nature of the Security Interest

A floating charge establishes an in favor of the chargee, granting the secured a right over the specified class of assets without conferring legal or possession upon crystallization. Unlike a legal , which transfers legal title, the floating charge operates solely in equity, providing the chargee with a right to the proceeds of the charged assets only upon the occurrence of a crystallization event, such as default or , at which point the charge fixes to specific assets. This equitable nature ensures that the chargee does not hold present title to the assets, preserving the chargor's legal estate throughout the ordinary course of business. Prior to crystallization, the chargee's interest remains postponed and unattached to particular assets, imposing limited monitoring obligations but no veto power over the chargor's dealings with the secured . The chargee may require periodic reporting on asset values or compliance with covenants, yet cannot prevent the chargor from selling, disposing, or substituting assets in the ordinary course of trade without consent. This deferred attachment distinguishes the floating charge from fixed security, where immediate control restricts such autonomy. The chargor maintains both legal and of the assets subject to the floating charge, enabling continued control and use in operations until fixation. This retention of allows the company to manage fluctuating assets like or receivables freely, supporting commercial flexibility while the charge "hovers" over the asset pool. Historical cases, such as Illingworth v Houldsworth AC 355, affirmed this characteristic by emphasizing the chargor's ability to carry on without interference. Legal theory surrounding the floating charge debates its classification as a true charge, a , or a hybrid , given its unique blend of deferred enforcement and proprietary scope. Courts have scrutinized purported floating charges to determine their substance, particularly where documents intend a fixed charge but permit undue freedom, leading to recharacterization. The landmark decision in National Westminster Bank plc v Spectrum Plus Ltd UKHL 41 clarified this scrutiny, ruling that a charge over book debts allowing unrestricted use of proceeds constitutes a floating charge, not fixed, regardless of labeling. Post-2005 has further emphasized the vulnerability of "all monies" clauses—securing all present and future liabilities—to recharacterization if they fail to impose sufficient restrictions, reinforcing judicial focus on actual control over form.

Flexibility and Operation

A floating charge operates by creating a security interest that "hovers" over a defined class of present and future assets, such as stock-in-trade, book debts, or , without immediately attaching to any specific item. This allows the chargor company to freely sell, replace, or acquire new assets within that class in the ordinary course of its business, without requiring the chargee's prior consent. This flexibility provides significant advantages to chargors, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) or manufacturing firms, by enabling uninterrupted trading and avoiding the asset lock-up inherent in fixed charges, where dealings typically necessitate lender approval. In contrast to the rigidity of fixed charges over identifiable assets, the floating charge supports dynamic operations, making it a preferred mechanism for securing loans against fluctuating asset pools. The chargee's remains equitable and inchoate until attachment, preserving the chargor's control over the assets during normal activities. However, this operational freedom is not absolute, with limitations imposed to protect the chargee's position; for instance, the chargor is generally restricted from extraordinary dealings, such as bulk sales or disposals outside the ordinary course of , without the chargee's consent. Automatic may occur on certain predefined events, converting the charge into a fixed one and curtailing further asset dealings. In practice, floating charges are commonly used to finance needs, where companies can continue replenishing stock or collecting receivables to maintain . Even in scenarios, an uncrystallized floating charge helps preserve continuity by permitting ongoing asset utilization until . In the context of modern business environments, particularly following the growth post-2020, floating charges have extended to digital assets, including cryptocurrencies and . Digital assets qualify as "property" under insolvency law, enabling their inclusion within the hovering class of a floating charge, subject to the same operational mechanics. For example, in the 2024 case of Re UKCloud Ltd, the ruled that IP addresses formed part of a floating charge due to the lender's lack of control, underscoring the adaptability of this security to intangible digital elements while highlighting the need for precise drafting to avoid unintended classifications.

Remedies Available to Chargee

When the chargor defaults on obligations secured by a floating charge, the chargee may enforce its security through various mechanisms to recover the outstanding debt. typically serves as a prerequisite for realizing specific assets under the charge. A key remedy involves the appointment of a receiver or administrator to assume control of the charged assets, manage operations if necessary, and facilitate their disposal. Under the Insolvency Act 1986, the holder of a qualifying floating charge—defined as one covering the whole or substantially the whole of a company's —has the right to appoint an administrator out of without prior judicial intervention, provided certain notice requirements are met. This non-judicial path enables swift action to protect the chargee's interests while aiming to achieve better results for creditors than immediate . Historically, prior to 15 September 2003, the appointment of an administrative receiver was a broad enforcement option available to floating charge holders under the Insolvency Act 1986, allowing the receiver to take possession of substantially all company assets to realize value primarily for the chargee. The Enterprise Act 2002 significantly curtailed this remedy, abolishing administrative receivership for most floating charges created after that date to foster a "rescue culture" in insolvency proceedings, except in limited cases such as certain financings or public-private partnerships exceeding £50 million. In such scenarios, court-ordered remains available as a judicial alternative, though it is less common due to the efficiency of out-of-court appointments. Upon enforcement, the receiver or administrator may sell the crystallized assets, with proceeds applied to discharge the secured debt. Recovery follows a statutory order: first, covering the expenses of the or administration; second, preferential payments such as employee wages and certain taxes; third, the prescribed part ring-fenced for unsecured creditors; fourth, the chargee's claim; with any surplus returned to the chargor. For floating charges created on or after 15 September 2003, the prescribed part of the proceeds—typically up to 50% of the first £10,000 and 20% thereafter, capped at £800,000—is set aside for unsecured creditors. The decision in Agnew v Commissioner of UKPC 28 established a two-stage test for characterizing charges as fixed or floating, influencing the timing and scope of enforcement by determining the degree of control required before realization can occur. In cross-border , recent interpretations of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, as implemented in the UK's Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 and updated through judicial guidance post-2020, enable hybrid remedies for chargees, allowing recognition of foreign proceedings and coordinated relief to enforce floating charges across jurisdictions while balancing local secured creditor rights.

Crystallisation Process

Crystallisation refers to the process by which a floating charge converts into a fixed charge, thereby attaching to the specific assets in existence at that moment and restricting the chargor's ability to deal with them in the ordinary course of business. This conversion typically occurs upon the happening of certain triggering events specified in the charge document or by operation of law, such as the insolvency of the chargor, the cessation of the chargor's business, or the service of a notice by the chargee. For instance, defaults like non-payment of debt under a loan agreement can serve as triggers, leading to the charge "fixing" on the assets to protect the chargee's interests. The crystallisation process can manifest in several types, including automatic crystallisation, which occurs without intervention upon events like the winding-up of the company or the appointment of an administrator. Voluntary crystallisation happens when the chargee takes , such as serving a on the chargor to convert the charge, often in response to a . Additionally, statutory mechanisms influence the process; for example, the Enterprise Act 2002 reformed insolvency procedures by limiting administrative receivership for most floating charges and introducing a "prescribed part" of realisations from floating charge assets to be ring-fenced for unsecured creditors, thereby affecting the timing and implications of crystallisation in administration scenarios. Upon crystallisation, the chargor loses the freedom to dispose of or create interests in the charged assets without the chargee's , effectively ring-fencing those assets for the benefit of the chargee and prioritising the chargee's claim over them. This shift also impacts subsequent security interests, as the fixed charge gains precedence over later fixed charges taken with notice of any negative pledge clause in the original floating charge document, potentially subordinating those later interests. Key judicial decisions have clarified aspects of this process. In Re Woodroffes (Musical Instruments) Ltd Ch 366, the English Court of Appeal held that the cessation of the company's business automatically triggered crystallisation of the floating charge, as it inherently ended the chargor's capacity to deal with the assets in the ordinary course, without requiring additional notice. Similarly, in Smith (Administrator of Cosslett (Contractors) Ltd) v Council 1 AC 336, the affirmed the nature of crystallisation by ruling that a contractual allowing retention and sale of plant upon constituted an unregistered floating charge, which crystallised upon the insolvency event, thereby invalidating the clause against the administrator due to registration failures.

Priority and Ranking

In the context of insolvency proceedings under , floating charges generally rank below fixed charges over the same assets, regardless of the order in which they were created, but ahead of unsecured creditors. This positioning reflects the flexible nature of floating charges, which permit the chargor to deal with the secured assets until crystallization, subordinating them to more restrictive fixed security interests. Furthermore, proceeds from floating charge assets are subordinated to preferential debts, including employee wages (up to specified limits), holiday pay, and certain liabilities owed to HMRC, which regained secondary preferential status for certain unpaid taxes like VAT and PAYE effective from December 1, , with no monetary cap. Among multiple floating charges over the same class of assets, priority is determined by the date of creation, with earlier charges ranking ahead of later ones, subject to proper registration. This follows the general rule under the that charges rank according to their chronological order unless varied by agreement. The principle applies to holders of floating charges of equal priority, ensuring they share proceeds proportionately, but this can be disrupted by negative pledge clauses in earlier debentures, which prohibit the creation of subsequent charges with superior ranking and bind later chargees with notice. In some cases, the first floating charge to crystallize may effectively gain an advantage by converting to a fixed charge before others, thereby potentially altering the practical distribution order upon enforcement. Statutory mechanisms further overlay these priority rules to protect unsecured interests. Under section 176A of the Insolvency Act 1986, a "prescribed part" of the net property subject to a floating charge—calculated as 50% of the first £10,000 plus 20% of the excess, up to a maximum of £800,000—must be set aside for unsecured creditors before distribution to the charge holder. This provision, introduced by the Enterprise Act 2002 and applicable to charges created after September 15, 2003, ensures a minimum ring-fenced fund from floating charge realizations. Contractual subordination agreements can modify these default rankings, allowing parties to agree that one floating charge ranks below another, often used in intercreditor arrangements to allocate recoveries. Such agreements are enforceable provided they do not contravene statutory protections like the prescribed part. Additionally, clauses covering after-acquired property in floating charges extend security to future assets, but their priority against intervening interests depends on the timing of attachment and any steps, ensuring comprehensive coverage while adhering to hierarchies.

Criticisms and Reforms

Voidable Floating Charges

Under section 245 of the Act , a floating charge created by a is void against the liquidator or administrator except to the extent of the value provided by the chargee, if the charge was created at a "relevant time" and the company was unable to pay its debts at the time of creation or became unable to do so as a result of the transaction. The "relevant time" is defined as the period within 12 months before the onset of for charges to unconnected persons, or within 2 years for connected persons, with the onset typically marked by the commencement of winding-up proceedings or administration. This provision aims to prevent creditors from gaining undue preference by securing existing debts shortly before , thereby protecting the principle among unsecured creditors. An important exception preserves the charge's validity to the extent that new value was provided, such as paid in respect of new loans, or services supplied, or debts discharged after the charge's creation, including any on such amounts. The burden of proof lies with the chargee to demonstrate that this exception applies, requiring evidence that the was genuinely new and not merely a of prior obligations. For non-connected persons, the charge remains fully valid if the company was at the time of creation and did not become insolvent because of it, but this defense is unavailable against connected persons. Connected persons, including directors, shadow directors, and their associates such as family members or controlling shareholders, face stricter scrutiny with the extended two-year relevant time period and no exception available. This heightened standard reflects concerns over insider influence potentially accelerating while extracting , subjecting such charges to automatic invalidation unless new value is proven. The 12-month period under section 245 runs from the date of the presentation of the winding-up petition. Recent applications of section 245 have appeared in crypto-finance insolvencies between 2022 and 2025, where floating charges over digital assets were challenged for voidability; for instance, the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce's 2024 Legal Statement on Digital Assets and English Insolvency Law noted that such charges over cryptoassets may be invalidated under section 245, subject to exceptions for new value. Emerging issues in voidability proofs involve AI-driven , which enhances insolvency practitioners' ability to trace fluctuating digital or intangible assets and substantiate claims of no new value provided, potentially increasing successful voidance applications but also complicating chargees' evidentiary burdens in proving exceptions. This vulnerability underscores broader criticisms of floating charges as less secure in high-tech asset environments.

Registration Requirements

In the , floating charges created by companies must be registered with within 21 days of their creation, as required by sections 859A to 859Q of the Companies Act 2006. This registration involves submitting form MR01 electronically or by post, accompanied by a of the instrument creating the charge, such as a . The process ensures public notice of the and is essential for its enforceability against third parties. The particulars required for registration include the date of creation of the charge, the names and addresses of the chargor (the company granting the charge) and chargee (the secured party), a short of the subject to the charge, the amount secured (or maximum amount if applicable), and details of any provisions restricting further charges, such as negative pledge clauses. For floating charges, which typically cover a class of assets rather than specific items, the often employs broad language like "all present and future " or "the whole of the undertaking and assets" of the company to encompass circulating assets such as and receivables. In the case of floating charges, additional statements must outline any prohibitions or restrictions on the company's ability to dispose of the charged assets before crystallisation. Failure to register within the 21-day period renders the floating charge void against a liquidator, administrator, or any of the company, though the underlying remains valid and enforceable against the chargor. This consequence results in the loss of priority over the charged assets in proceedings, subordinating the chargee to other creditors, but the charge is not void and may still bind the company directly. Internationally, registration requirements for floating charges or equivalent security interests vary to achieve perfection and priority. In , under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009, security interests akin to floating charges—often termed "all present and after-acquired property" (AllPAAP) interests over circulating assets—must be registered on the (PPSR) to perfect the interest and protect against third-party claims. Similarly, in , the Personal Property Securities Act 1999 mandates registration of security interests, including floating charges, on the to ensure enforceability and priority, with transitional provisions recognizing pre-existing charges. These registries serve analogous functions to by providing public notice and determining ranking in .

Broader Critiques

Floating charges have faced significant policy-level criticism for perpetuating in proceedings by prioritizing secured s over unsecured ones. This preference allows holders of floating charges to recover a substantial portion of their claims from the company's assets, while unsecured s often receive minimal or no distributions, thereby exacerbating disparities in creditor outcomes. For instance, empirical studies indicate that floating charge holders achieve recovery rates of 63% in cases where distributions occur, compared to just 9% for unsecured s. Such imbalances undermine the broader goal of equitable asset distribution in corporate failure, as secured lenders—typically larger financial institutions—benefit disproportionately at the expense of trade suppliers, employees, and other general s. Equitable concerns further highlight how floating charges disrupt the principle of distribution, enabling "cherry-picking" of valuable assets during enforcement or administration. By granting secured creditors the ability to appoint administrators or receivers who can selectively realize high-value assets under the charge, the mechanism disadvantages unsecured creditors, who are left with residual or low-value remnants after preferential claims and expenses are satisfied. This selective enforcement contravenes the foundational insolvency norm of equal treatment among creditors of the same class, fostering perceptions of unfairness and reducing incentives for unsecured lending. The result is a systemic bias that concentrates recovery benefits among a narrow group of secured parties, often banks, while general creditors face near-total losses in over 90% of cases. The complexity inherent in floating charges also poses economic barriers, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) seeking finance. The nuanced distinctions between fixed and floating charges, coupled with registration and requirements, create uncertainty and high compliance costs that deter lenders from extending to smaller borrowers with fluctuating assets. Law Commission reviews have noted that these outdated rules—rooted in 19th-century —hinder efficient access to capital, as SMEs struggle to navigate the risks of recharacterization or invalidation, limiting their ability to secure affordable funding compared to larger firms. Reform proposals have addressed these critiques through calls for abolition or enhanced subordination to promote fairness. Influential scholars like Roy Goode have advocated abolishing the floating charge entirely, arguing it is an anachronistic device that unduly favors secured interests without sufficient counterbalancing protections for unsecured parties. Earlier, the Cork Committee (1982) recommended subordinating floating charge recoveries to create a dedicated fund for unsecured creditors, a concept partially implemented via the "prescribed part" under the Enterprise Act 2002 but criticized as insufficient given ongoing recovery gaps. Subsequent Law Commission consultations (2002–2005) proposed streamlining registration and priority rules to mitigate complexity without elimination. These reforms aim to balance creditor incentives with broader economic equity, though implementation remains debated amid concerns over reduced lending availability.

Comparative Perspectives

United States Equivalents

In the , there is no direct equivalent to the English floating charge, but the closest analogs are floating liens under Article 9 of the (UCC), which govern secured transactions in such as and . These floating liens allow a to attach to a shifting pool of assets, enabling the to use and dispose of collateral in the ordinary course of business without the secured party's prior consent. After-acquired property clauses under UCC § 9-204 further mimic the floating nature by extending the security interest to assets acquired by the debtor after the agreement is made, excluding certain items like consumer goods. Key differences arise in perfection and scope. Unlike the English floating charge, which can cover a company's entire undertaking including real property and does not require immediate crystallization, U.S. floating liens are perfected by filing a financing statement under UCC § 9-310, providing public notice without a crystallization event. The scope of U.S. floating liens is broader in some respects, as they apply uniformly to personal property without the preferential subordination to preferential creditors seen in English law, though they are limited to movable assets and do not extend to real estate. Additionally, UCC § 9-205 abolishes the pre-UCC Benedict rule, granting debtors freer disposal rights over collateral compared to the more restrictive English framework. Enforcement of these liens follows secured transaction rules under Article 9, permitting remedies like or sale of collateral upon default, similar to those for fixed charges, but subject to bankruptcy constraints. In Chapter 11 proceedings, the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362 halts all actions, including enforcement of floating liens, freezing the collateral as of the petition date and prioritizing reorganization over immediate . This contrasts with English procedures, where may occur automatically upon winding up. The validity of floating liens was affirmed in Grain Merchants of Indiana, Inc. v. Union Bank & Savings Co., 408 F.2d 209 (7th Cir. 1969), where the court upheld a lien on and proceeds against a bankruptcy trustee's challenge, confirming that such interests survive scrutiny if properly perfected and not enabling debtor evasion of creditors. Recent developments include the 2022 UCC amendments, adopted by 31 states and the District of Columbia as of October 2025, which introduce "controllable electronic records" (CERs) to facilitate floating liens over digital assets like , expanding the framework to while maintaining perfection via control or filing.

Quebec and Civil Law Variants

In Quebec's civil law jurisdiction, the functional equivalent to the common law floating charge is the movable hypothec without delivery, as established under articles 2700 to 2717 of the Civil Code of Québec (CCQ). This security interest is created by a written contract between the debtor and creditor, granting the latter a real right over a universality of present and future movables that form part of the debtor's patrimony or the assets of an enterprise. Unlike a specific or fixed hypothec, which attaches to identified property, this form provides a broader, non-possessory charge that permits the debtor to continue using and disposing of the assets in the ordinary course of business until enforcement. The hypothec on an entire patrimony encompasses all movables owned by the debtor, offering extensive coverage, while the enterprise variant is restricted to property essential to the operation of the business, including replacements for such assets. Key differences from the floating charge include the absence of a "" mechanism; instead, upon the debtor's default, the creditor may directly initiate of the hypothecated through judicial , leading to its sale to satisfy the . To be enforceable against third parties, the must be registered in the Register of Personal and Movable Real Rights (RDPRM), with registration effective for five years and renewable thereafter; failure to register or renew renders it ineffective beyond the debtor-creditor relationship. This registration system ensures publicity and opposability, contrasting with the more flexible notice-based approaches in provinces. Priority rules position the movable without delivery after fixed hypothecs on specific movables and certain legal hypothecs, but ahead of unsecured creditors; among conventional hypothecs, follows the order of RDPRM registration dates. Preferential status is granted to specific creditors, such as employees, whose legal hypothecs under CCQ article 2093 provide super-priority over movables for unpaid wages, up to a statutory limit, thereby protecting labor claims in scenarios. The modern framework for these hypothecs emerged with the 1994 enactment of the CCQ, which reformed interests to facilitate commercial lending and align Quebec's civil law with the federal and Act (BIA) by introducing non-possessory charges on future assets. Ongoing efforts, including BIA amendments in 2001 and subsequent judicial interpretations post-2020, have integrated enforcement with federal processes, ensuring that registered hypothecs are treated as secured claims in while respecting civil law priorities. In 2023, Bill 34 amended notarial provisions in the CCQ to incorporate information technologies, enabling electronic execution of hypothecs on emerging tech assets like digital claims and thereby enhancing for innovative financing.

Other Jurisdictions

In , the floating charge is a statutory created under the , functioning similarly to its English counterpart by encumbering a class of fluctuating assets while permitting the chargor to deal with them in the ordinary course of business until crystallisation, which typically occurs upon the appointment of a receiver or the company's . Unlike the English debenture-integrated model, Scottish floating charges are often standalone instruments accompanied by a bond acknowledging the underlying , and they must be registered with the within 21 days of creation to maintain validity. The Moveable Transactions (Scotland) Act 2023, fully in force from April 2025, introduces new forms of such as non-possessory pledges and assignations over moveable property, providing alternatives to floating charges for more targeted secured lending while maintaining the utility of floating charges for all-asset coverage. The European Union's Directive 2002/47/EC on financial collateral arrangements promotes the efficient use of collateral across member states by harmonising rules on enforcement and close-out netting, effectively approximating floating charges through provisions that validate security interests—including floating ones—over financial instruments where the collateral taker exercises sufficient possession or control, thereby facilitating cross-border pledges without immediate attachment. This directive, implemented via national regulations such as the UK's Financial Collateral Arrangements (No. 2) Regulations 2003, ensures that floating charges over eligible collateral like shares or bonds are enforceable in , subject to demonstrating control to avoid recharacterisation as fixed charges. In , the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (PPSA) unified pre-existing security devices, abolishing the traditional distinction between fixed and floating charges in favour of a single "" regime that encompasses floating-like interests over circulating assets such as inventory and , which remain unattached until a triggering event like default. These interests are perfected by registration on the (PPSR), prioritising them in over unperfected claims, and allow the grantor flexibility in trading assets akin to a classic floating charge. New Zealand's Personal Property Securities Act 1999 adopts a parallel approach, treating floating charges as security interests that "float" over circulating assets without immediate attachment, with perfection via the ensuring enforceability and priority. Under this framework, all security interests are inherently fixed in nature upon attachment, but the legislation explicitly references floating charges to preserve their functional equivalence for transitional purposes. Singapore's Companies Act 1967 directly adopts the English common law model for floating charges, defining them under section 4 as security over a class of the company's present and future property that permits disposal in the ordinary course of business until crystallisation upon events like insolvency or notice by the chargee. Registration with the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA) within 30 days is mandatory for validity against third parties, and floating charges rank behind fixed charges and preferential creditors in liquidation, mirroring UK priorities. In India, the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 (SARFAESI) offers a partial banking-specific equivalent by empowering secured creditors to enforce floating charges over movable property and crystallization into fixed charges without court intervention, streamlining recovery for non-performing assets. This mechanism, applicable to banks and financial institutions, covers hypothecation and pledges over fluctuating assets like stock and receivables, though it requires prior registration with the Central Registry of Securitisation Asset Reconstruction and Security Interest of India (CERSAI). Among civil law jurisdictions, approximates the floating charge through the nantissement sur fonds de commerce, a pledge over the entire enterprise—including goodwill, , and equipment—as a unitary asset, allowing the to operate normally until upon default. Governed by articles L.142-1 et seq. of the French Commercial Code, this security must be registered with the commercial registry and provides the pledgee priority over fluctuating assets in , though it excludes future acquisitions unless specified. In , no direct floating charge exists under the (BGB), but functional equivalents include the Sicherungsübertragung (security transfer) or comprehensive pledges over all present and future enterprise assets, creating a blanket security akin to a floating by encumbering the as a whole without prohibiting ordinary dealings. These are typically structured as silent pledges (stilles Pfandrecht) to avoid , with perfection via agreement or notification, and they rank in subject to the Insolvency Code (InsO). As of 2025, harmonisation trends in secured transactions are advancing through initiatives like the Strategic Plan 2026–2030, adopted on May 26, 2025, and the Asian Economic Integration Report, which promote unified frameworks for interests across member states to facilitate cross-border lending, including standardised registration and priority rules for circulating assets. In , floating charges are adapting to digital assets, with courts recognising as property amenable to security via charges over wallets and , enabling lenders to enforce against crypto holdings as circulating collateral in line with the Payment Services Act. This development supports the Monetary Authority of Singapore's ecosystem for tokenised securities, where floating interests over digital portfolios enhance liquidity in blockchain-based financing.

References

  1. https://www.kirkland.com/-/media/publications/article/2006/01/uk-england-and-wales/plc-crossborder-handbook--uk-chapter.pdf
  2. https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/guidance/floating-charges
  3. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a790827e5274a2acd18baf0/13-569-companies-act-2006-part-25-registration-company-charges-impact.pdf
  4. https://www.lw.com/en/insights/charging-ahead-grappling-with-the-characterisation-of-fixed-and-floating-charges
  5. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/part/25
  6. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/40/section/250
  7. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/211/made
  8. https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/0-107-5773?transitionType=Default&contextData=%28sc.Default%29
  9. https://www.elgaronline.com/edcollchap/book/9781035317141/chapter2.xml
  10. https://www.pillsburylaw.com/en/news-and-insights/floating-charges-english-us-law-cross-border-lenders.html
  11. https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/guidance/floating-charges-advantages-disadvantages
  12. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hmrc-as-a-preferential-creditor/hmrc-as-a-preferential-creditor
  13. https://www.clydeco.com/clyde/media/fileslibrary/Publications/2012/CC002191_Knowledge_bank_CA005_flyer_14.12.12.pdf
  14. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1960.tb00630.x
  15. https://www.jus.uio.no/kommersiell-rett/arrangementer/2024/presentasjoner/macpherson.pdf
  16. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-african-law/article/conceptual-or-pragmatic-differentiating-floating-charges-from-unitary-security-interests-under-nigerian-law/B055BB2B2FDAC5D8717BE471D9A2F89F
  17. https://www.jstor.org/stable/823918
  18. https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/guidance/fixed-floating-charges-key-cases
  19. https://juristopedia.com/case/illingworth-v-houldsworth/
  20. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd050630/nat-6.htm
  21. https://www.canlii.org/en/commentary/doc/1989CanLIIDocs125
  22. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0105/latest/DLM323545.html
  23. https://www.elgaronline.com/display/9781788971386/13_chapter4.xhtml
  24. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/part/25/enacted
  25. https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ppsa2009356/
  26. https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/guidance/fixed-floating-charges
  27. https://www.wrighthassall.co.uk/knowledge-base/legal-charges-and-forms-of-security
  28. https://www.deacons.com/sc/2014/07/14/priority-of-floating-charges/
  29. https://opusllp.com/fixed-and-floating-charges-a-crucial-new-judgement/
  30. https://www.elgaronline.com/edcollchap/book/9781035317141/chapter2.pdf
  31. https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/4-523-7806?transitionType=Default&contextData=%28sc.Default%29
  32. https://lawprof.co/commercial-law/charges-cases/re-spectrum-plus-ltd-2005-2-ac-680/
  33. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1612bf58-53f2-4bb2-b5c9-c504ddf8f5b0
  34. https://www.fieldfisher.com/en/insights/introduction-to-security
  35. https://www.shoosmiths.com/insights/articles/navigating-digital-assets-in-insolvency
  36. https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/analysis/ip-addresses-ruled-floating-charge-under-loan-security
  37. https://www.thegazette.co.uk/insolvency/content/103878
  38. https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/guidance/when-to-appoint-a-receiver-as-opposed-to-an-administrator
  39. https://uncitral.un.org/sites/uncitral.un.org/files/media-documents/uncitral/en/mlcbi_judicial_perspective_2021_advance_copy.pdf
  40. https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/3-542-5285?transitionType=Default&contextData=%28sc.Default%29
  41. https://doras.dcu.ie/25494/2/Crystallisation%2520-%2520JCLS%2520%25281%2529.pdf
  42. https://gadlegal.co.uk/news/commercial-law/company-loans-debenture-fixed-and-floating-charges-explained/
  43. https://lawprof.co/commercial-law/charges-cases/re-woodroffes-1986-ch-366/
  44. https://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=371092
  45. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd011108/smith-1.htm
  46. https://www.dlapiperrealworld.com/law/index.html?c=GB-ENG-WLS&t=finance&s=borrower-insolvency-enforcement&q=order-of-payment
  47. https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/commentary/gore-browne-on-companies/part-vii-loans/priorities-between-fixed-floating-charges
  48. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/45/section/245
  49. https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/w-016-9561?transitionType=Default&contextData=%28sc.Default%29
  50. https://27221500.fs1.hubspotusercontent-eu1.net/hubfs/27221500/LawtechUK%20archive%20reports/UKJT%20Legal%20Statement%20on%20Digital%20Assets%20and%20English%20Insolvency%20Law.pdf
  51. https://www.stewartslaw.com/news/ai-and-insolvency-a-game-changer-for-investigations-and-asset-recovery-claims/
  52. https://www.leasinglife.com/analyst-comment/is-your-floating-charge-still-valid/
  53. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/registering-a-charge-mortgage-for-a-company
  54. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/661fdb4bced96304c8757eff/MR01_v3.0_final.pdf
  55. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/part/25/chapter/2/crossheading/the-register-of-charges/enacted?view=plain
  56. https://www.faegredrinker.com/en/insights/publications/2013/3/new-registration-of-charges-regime-for-uk-companies
  57. https://www.ppsr.gov.au/registering/you-create-registration/collateral-type-and-class
  58. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1999/0126/latest/whole.html
  59. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/creditors-voluntary-liquidation-cvl-research-report-for-the-insolvency-service/cvl-research-report-for-the-insolvency-service
  60. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=386040
  61. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/cambridge-law-journal/article/priority-as-pathology-the-pari-passu-myth/1E3923D2A3F2448DBA5C673188888BBF
  62. https://academic.oup.com/book/50276/chapter/422761731
  63. https://www.juridicainternational.eu/article_full.php?uri=2015_23_70_special-treatment-of-the-floating-charge-in-insolvency-proceedings
  64. https://www.etd.ceu.edu/2008/rapava_simona.pdf
  65. https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=4355&context=lawreview
  66. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1186&context=cjil
  67. https://lira.bc.edu/files/pdf?fileid=d604b955-4265-4a2d-adf1-0be00542ccf3
  68. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/11/362
  69. https://lira.bc.edu/files/pdf?fileid=3a35a4d6-1e35-4877-bf52-84973cfbf42b
  70. https://www.wsgr.com/en/insights/enhanced-protection-for-defi-lenders-buyers-and-investors-under-recent-and-new-ucc-amendments.html
  71. https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3059&context=facscholar
  72. https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/CCQ-1991
  73. https://ccq.lexum.com/w/ccq/en/art2700
  74. https://www.blg.com/en/insights/2020/12/taking-security-in-quebec-guidance-for-us-lenders
  75. https://www.quebec.ca/en/finance-income-and-other-taxes/manage-debts/seizure/seizure-movable-property/about
  76. https://psplegal.ca/en/expertise/priorities/
  77. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/harmonization/hfl-hlf/b8-f8/bf8b.html
  78. https://publications.gc.ca/Collection/J2-176-8-2001E-1.pdf
  79. https://www.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/Fichiers_client/lois_et_reglements/LoisAnnuelles/fr/2023/2023C23A.PDF
  80. https://brodies.com/insights/banking-and-finance/key-differences-between-scottish-and-english-floating-charges/
  81. https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/glossary/floating-charge-or-bond-floating-charge
  82. https://revistas.ucp.pt/index.php/catolicalawreview/article/view/11411/11222
  83. https://shepwedd.com/sites/default/files/Guide-to-English-and-Scottish-Banking-Law-Terms-Scots-Counsel.pdf
  84. https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/analysis/lending-borrowing-moveable-property-assignation-scotland
  85. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/3226
  86. https://www.mayerbrown.com/-/media/files/news/2011/06/a-tentative-step-forward--amendments-to-the-financ/files/art_zander_fox_jun11_tentative-step/fileattachment/art_zander_fox_jun11_tentative-step.pdf
  87. https://www.cliffordchance.com/content/dam/cliffordchance/briefings/2012/11/financial-collateral-remains-a-gray-area.pdf
  88. https://anzlaw.thomsonreuters.com/Glossary/AUPracticalLaw/I564be7f8321411e89bf099c0ee06c731
  89. https://www.holmanwebb.com.au/blog/144/the-effect-of-ppsa-on-the-fixed-and-floating-charge
  90. https://www.ppsguide.com.au/chapters/chapter-28/28-2-background-to-floating-charges-and-their-specific-legal-issues/
  91. https://www.bartier.com.au/insights/articles/what-will-become-of-the-fixed-and-floating-charge-under-ppsa
  92. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1999/0126/latest/DLM46187.html
  93. https://www.mondaq.com/newzealand/charges-mortgages-indemnities/211870/supreme-court-clarifies-ppsa-regime-confirms-statutory-fixed-charge
  94. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1999/0126/latest/DLM46240.html
  95. https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2020&context=til
  96. https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/CoA1967?ProvIds=pr131-%2Cpr210-
  97. https://www.acra.gov.sg/how-to-guides/registering-a-charge-for-companies
  98. https://singaporelegaladvice.com/law-articles/creating-registering-charges-singapore-companies/
  99. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/2006/1/A2002-54.pdf
  100. https://ibclaw.in/section-2-definitions/
  101. https://www.mondaq.com/india/charges-mortgages-indemnities/643202/security-interests-over-moveable-assets
  102. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=41272a72-87d3-4a8d-830c-58ecae720c0d
  103. https://www.bensussan.fr/en/pages/banking-law/
  104. https://www.twobirds.com/-/media/pdfs/chambers-global-practice-guide-2019---france.pdf
  105. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d35e4b7d-431c-475d-a901-2dc5fbd5d1be
  106. https://www.legal500.com/guides/chapter/france-acquisition-finance/
  107. https://iclg.com/practice-areas/lending-and-secured-finance-laws-and-regulations/germany
  108. https://ouclf.law.ox.ac.uk/cross-border-insolvency-under-english-and-german-law/
  109. https://www.traverssmith.com/knowledge/knowledge-container/german-obligors-in-cross-border-financing-transactions/
  110. https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/07.-AEC-Strategic-Plan-2026-2030_adopted.pdf
  111. https://aric.adb.org/pdf/aeir/AEIR2025_complete.pdf
  112. https://dentons.rodyk.com/en/insights/alerts/2024/march/20/taking-security-over-cryptoassets
  113. https://www.drewnapier.com/DrewNapier/media/DrewNapier/Chambers-Global-Practice-Guides-Singapore-Blockchain-2025.pdf
  114. https://www.globallegalinsights.com/practice-areas/blockchain-cryptocurrency-laws-and-regulations/singapore/
  115. https://www.mas.gov.sg/regulation/explainers/a-guide-to-digital-token-offerings
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.