Randhawa & Anor v Turpin & Anor [2017] EWCA Civ 1201
In a fascinating (and very readable) judgment, the Court of Appeal has held the appointment of joint administrators made under paragraph 22 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 ("IA 1986") to be invalid because, among other things, the appointment was made following an inquourate board meeting. Readers are encouraged to read the judgment, as the following is merely an overview of the facts and conclusions.
BACKGROUND
This article was first published in Insolvency Intelligence 2017 30(6) and is now available on Westlaw.
Gowling WLG's finance litigation experts bring you the latest on the cases and issues affecting the lending industry.
Single signature bank mandate binding on partnership
The High Court has recently considered whether a one signature bank mandate was sufficient to bind a partnership to various loan agreements.
Litigation is full of uncertainty. Even the strongest case carries risks and a primary consideration when embarking on any litigation is whether the proposed defendant is able to pay.
If your business is being pressed to disclose details of your insurance coverage prior to a claim being brought against it are you obliged to do so?
The recent case of Peel Port Shareholder Finance Company Ltd. v Dornoch Ltd gave the High Court the opportunity to consider whether a public liability insurance policy is something that should be disclosed pre litigation.
In a decision that will be welcomed both by second-ranking secured creditors and by administrators, the Court of Appeal recently held that a second-ranking floating charge (SRFC) was still capable of being a qualifying floating charge for the purposes of Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986 despite the earlier crystallisation of a prior-ranking floating charge (PRFC). In addition, the SRFC was capable of being enforceable notwithstanding the fact that there were no assets of the chargor which were not covered by the PRFC.
The recent case ofCrumper v Candey Ltd [2017] EWCH 1511 (Ch) delivered an updated analysis of the operation of section 245 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“s245”). Although the insolvency proceedings (and much of the litigation before and after the insolvency commenced) originated in the British Virgin Islands, they were recognised in England and Wales under the Cross Border Insolvency Regulations 2006.
In Randhawa and Randhawa v Turpin and Hardy [2017] the Court of Appeal considered the comparatively simple question of whether the sole director of a company with articles that required two directors for a board meeting to be quorate, could validly appoint administrators under paragraph 22(2) of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (paragraph 22(2)). The complicating feature was that, whilst 75% of the shares in the company were held by the sole director, the remaining 25% were registered in the name of a long-dissolved Manx company.
Background
In July 2017 the Court of Appeal considered what test should be applied to determine whether a Respondent has sufficient assets which would be caught by a freezing injunction to justify the granting of such an injunction.
Background
It was ordered that the Administrators could distribute to unsecured creditors, 8 years after Nortel entered Administration, so long as a reserve was maintained in relation to potential expense claims.