§ Mr. BuchanI beg to move Amendment No. 48, in page 19, line 8, leave out from subjects ' to shall ' in line 12.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this Amendment we can discuss the following Amendments: Nos. 49, 50, and 52.
§ Mr. BuchanThese are drafting Amendments to clarify the position of prior security holders in relation to the application of the proceeds of a sale which has taken place as a result of enforcement proceedings by a creditor in a standard security.
The principle of this Clause remains unaltered, namely, that the sale of the property may or may not be made subject to the prior security. In other words, if the parties prefer, the purchaser can take the property subject to the prior security. Where the prior security is, however, to be discharged in connection with the sale, the new drafting makes clearer the arrangements which are to apply. This Amendment deletes the rather too generalised references to prior securities in lines 8 to 12 and Amendment No. 49 substitutes a new head (b) in the order of priority in applying the proceeds of the sale.
This is a drafting Amendment and has other merits. I hope that it will receive support.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§
Further Amendments made: No. 49, in page 19, line 16, at end insert:
(b) secondly, in payment of the whole amount due under any prior security to which the sale is not made subject;.
§ No. 50, in line 17, leave out ' (b) secondly ' and insert ' (c) thirdly '.—[Mr. Buchan.]
§ Mr. BuchanI beg to move Amendment No. 51, in page 19, line 19, leave out first any ' and insert the whole '.
This is a drafting Amendment. In view of the reference to the " whole amount due " in line 17 in relation to the main standard security—the creditor in which has instituted enforcement proceedings leading to sale—it is appropriate to refer similarly when dealing with pari passu 930 security holders to " the whole amount due ".
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Further Amendment made: No. 52, in line 22, leave out (c) thirdly ' and insert (d) fourthly '.—[Mr. Buchan.]