As

noted,

the

Law Commission

has

put

the

matter

of

R OT

regist

aside

for

furth

e

r

91

ratiWereon.the

Cork

r

ecommendati ons

to

be

consid e

implemente

d,

however,

they

w ould go some way

to

m

eet

criticisms

on the

unavailability of

information concerning

ROTs

and

t

he unfairn

of extending R OTs beyond

t

he

immediate t

92

a

n d

ransactionInFr ance.

Ita ly, like the USA, RO Ts r equire

registration to be effective but

Regulati

on

on

Inso lv

ency

Proceedi

ngs

2000

,

w hile

making

expre

vision

for

RO

T

claims

(Arti

c

le

7

),

d

oes

not

93

r

egistr

ati

require

Trusts

Parti

e

s

involved

in

commercial

relations

wit

h

a

c

ompany

ma

reasons

discussed

above,

fi nd

it

dif

fi cult

to

take

security

or

reta

so

as

to

protect

th emselves

against a potential insolvency. The consu

for example, w ho pays in

advance f or goods may be ill-placed t o

such me asure s. Another kind of refuge may

,

howeve

r,

be

avail

reference

to

equitable

doctrines

w

hic

h

separate

property

held

on

from

property

forming

part

of

the

insolvent

94

company’sAsestatthe. Cork

91

Com

pany Security I nterests (Law

Com. No. 296, August 2005) para. 1.66; see p. 645

above. Reference can, however, be

made to the

added weight of the reports of

the D

and

Crowther

Committees

which

both

advocated a

new

register of ‘security interests’

would have included retentions of

title to secure the payment of money. On ROT regis

92

gene

rally

see

S .

W

heeler,

‘The

Insolvency Act 1986

and

ROTs180’. [1987] JBL

The Company Law Review Steering Group’

s 2 000

Co nsultation Document ( Regis

tration

of

C o m p a n y

Cuth foarwardg e sproposals) p

for

defi ning

those

retention

of

title clause

th

at

ar

e

d

eemed

registrable

b

ut,

as

noted,’

stheFinalCLRSGReport

( ch.

1

2) would have

tr eated complex, but not

s

im

ple,

ROTs as

r egistrabl

e

i n itsfi lingproposedsystemnotice.-

Fo

r

d is cuss io ns

lead

in g

up

t

o

the

sugges

ted

new

n oti ce-fi ling

sys

t e

charges set out in the Law Commission’s Draft Company Security Regulations 2006

(which, as indicated, contra to many proposals, did not in the end extend to ROTs) see Law

Commission, Consultation Paper No. 164, Registration of Security Interests: Company Charges

and Property other than Land (July 2002); Law Commission, Company Security Interests (Law

Com. No. 296, August 2005); and generally McCormack, ‘Law Commission and Company

Security Interests’; McCormack, ‘Rewriting the English Law of Personal Property Securities

and

Article

9

of the

US

Uniform Commercial

Code’

(200 3) 24 Co .

L aw. 69.