“The court had jurisdiction under paragraph 43(6) of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 to give permission retrospectively to institute legal proceedings against a company in administration.”
WLR daily, 24th October 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
In re Euromaster Ltd: [2012] EWHC 2356 (Ch); [2012] WLR (D) 258
“If the appointment of an administrator was made in breach of the restriction in paragraph 28(2) of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986, the appointment was irregular, but valid. In the case of an irregular (as opposed to a void) appointment of administrators the position was governed by rule 7.55 of the Insolvency Rules 1986.”
WLR Daily, 10th August 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“A recent High Court decision which appears to confirm that the failure to serve notice of intention to appoint an administrator on the relevant company does not invalidate the appointment leaves unanswered questions, a restructuring law expert has said.”
OUT-LAW.com, 6th August 2012
Source: www.out-law.com
“The rule against reflective loss and the extent to which a shareholder could sue for loss primarily suffered by and primarily belonging to a company did not extend to loss suffered by holders of a debenture.”
WLR Daily, 16th July 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Arrears of rent due during the provisional liquidation period were to be treated as an expense of the liquidation and payable in priority to most other liquidation expenses.”
WLR Daily, 16th May 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Bootes and others v Ceart Risk Services Ltd [2012] EWHC 1178 (Ch); [2012] WLR (D) 136
“A failure to comply with section 362A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 in the appointment of administrators did not necessarily invalidate that appointment irreparably.”
WLR Daily, 25th April 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“All firms offering will writing and estate administration should be regulated to protect consumers from falling victim to fraudsters and cowboy companies offering badly drafted documents, according to latest research.”
The Guardian, 23rd April 2012
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Viren Rastogi, the London metals trading tycoon behind one of Britain’s biggest ever frauds, has been ordered to serve seven years behind bars on top of an initial sentence of nine-and-a-half years because he has failed to return millions of pounds defrauded from 20 international banks.”
The Guardian, 24th February 2012
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“October last year saw the decision of the Court of Appeal in litigation arising from the administrations of Nortel and Lehman Brothers (Re Nortel GMBH [2011] EWCA Civ 1124). The case concerned the treatment of contribution notices from the Pensions Regulator by the administrators. However, for those who ventured beyond mention of the Pensions Regulator, the decision contains a useful review of the law pertaining to whether liabilities fall as provable debts or expenses of the insolvency process.”
Hardwicke Chambers, 8th February 2012
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
Schmitt v Deichmann and others [2012] EWHC 62 (Ch); [2012] WLR (D) 8
“The court had an inherent jurisdiction under the common law to permit the statutory power under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986, preventing transactions defrauding creditors, to be applied to a foreign administrator not falling within the express scope of the 1986 Act.”
WLR Daily, 23rd January 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
In re Bezier Acquisitions Ltd [2011] EWHC 3299 (Ch); [2011] WLR (D) 362
“Rule 2.8 of the Insolvency Rules 1986 did not provide a complete and exhaustive code as to service of a notice of intention to appoint administrators.”
WLR Daily, 12th December 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The administrators of an insolvent company were the officers of the court with statutory powers to exercise their discretion to act for the interests of the creditors as a whole. The court had statutory power to removal and replace the administrators, but it had first to be established by the evidence that there was a good or sufficient ground or cause for the removal and replacement. Only then could the court properly proceed to consider the exercise of its discretion by having regard to all the relevant factors for and against an order for removal, such as the beneficial consequences of success in possible legal proceedings.”
WLR Daily, 21st July 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Rule 7.55 of the Insolvency Rules 1986 could not be used by the court to waive defects of a relatively technical nature in the out of court appointment of administrators and such a change should only be brought about by legislation.”
WLR Daily, 30th June 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Millburn-Snell and others v Evans [2011] EWCA Civ 577; [2011] WLR (D) 179
“To bring a claim on behalf of an intestate’s estate a claimant should first obtain a grant of administration as a claim purportedly brought by a claimant without a grant of administration was an incurable nullity. CPR r 19.8(1) did not confer on the court jurisdiction to correct deficiencies in the manner in which proceedings had been instituted. It was concerned only with directions for the forward prosecution towards trial of validly instituted proceedings.”
WLR Daily, 25th May 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“Liabilities arising from the financial support direction (‘FSD’) regime created by the Pensions Act 2004 upon companies in administration or liquidation were payable as a liquidation or administration expense.”
WLR Daily, 13th December 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed
Revenue and Customs Comrs v Maxwell and another [2010] EWCA Civ 1379; [2010] WLR (D) 219
“The amount of a creditor’s claim against a company in administration and the characterisation of the company’s debt to the creditor were to be assessed under r 2.38(4) and (5) of the Insolvency Rules 1986 at the date of the administration, not the date of the creditors’ meeting, but the chairman’s powers of quantification under rr 2.39(1) and (3) and 2.38(5) were to be exercised taking into account events which had occurred since the administration.”
WLR Daily, 8th December 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“Considerations that the institution of proceedings for relief under s 244 of the Insolvency Act 1986 in respect of a transaction to which the company was a party was extortionate when the issue was only triable and the consequences of thereby rescuing the company less than reasonably practicable were relevant to the existence or otherwise of good reason to remove the administrators under para 88 of Sch B1 to the Act but were not themselves sufficient to preclude good or sufficient reason.”
WLR Daily, 14th October 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
© Inner Temple Library 2024