In Uralkali v Rowley and another [2020] EWHC 3442 (Ch) – a UK High Court case relating to the administration of a Formula 1 racing team – an unsuccessful bidder for the company's business and assets sued the administrators, arguing that the bid process had been negligently misrepresented and conducted.
The court found that the administrators did not owe a duty of care to the disappointed bidder. It rejected the claimant's criticisms of the company’s sale process and determined that the administrators had conducted it "fairly and properly" and were not, in fact, negligent.
In Uralkali v Rowley and another [2020] EWHC 3442 (Ch) – a UK High Court case relating to the administration of a Formula 1 racing team – an unsuccessful bidder for the company's business and assets sued the administrators, arguing that the bid process had been negligently misrepresented and conducted.
The court found that the administrators did not owe a duty of care to the disappointed bidder. It rejected the claimant's criticisms of the company’s sale process and determined that the administrators had conducted it "fairly and properly" and were not, in fact, negligent.
The case of Arlington Infrastructure Ltd (In Administration) v Woolrych [2020] EWHC 3123 (Ch) is a cautionary reminder to qualifying floating charge holders (and their advisors) to review the terms of all security documents, before seeking to appoint an administrator.
The case of Arlington Infrastructure Ltd (In Administration) v Woolrych [2020] EWHC 3123 (Ch) is a cautionary reminder to qualifying floating charge holders (and their advisors) to review the terms of all security documents, before seeking to appoint an administrator.
Introduction
Consequences of Tokenhouse for a QFCH
What can a QFCH do if it does not receive notice of intention to appoint administrators?
Earlier in the year, we published a blog regarding the impact of the moratorium introduced by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020. In particular, we flagged that the moratorium may result in a significant loss of control for secured lenders and qualified floating charge holders (QFCH).
The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the “Bill”) was published on 20 May 2020 and introduced a new debtor-in-possession moratorium to give companies breathing space in order to try to rescue the company as a going concern. The Bill went through the House of Commons on 3 June and passed through the House of Lords on 23 June. The Bill was back before the House of Commons today and is likely to receive Royal Assent next week (at which point the Bill will become law).
As set out in the first blog in this series, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the “Bill”) introduces a new debtor-in-possession moratorium to give companies breathing space in order to try to rescue the company as a going concern.
As set out in the first blog in this series, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the “Bill”) introduces a new debtor-in-possession moratorium to give companies breathing space in order to try to rescue the company as a going concern.
On 20 May 2020, the UK Government introduced the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the “Bill”) to the House of Commons. The Bill introduces a new debtor-in-possession moratorium to give companies breathing space in order to try to rescue the company as a going concern. The Bill is currently only in draft form and therefore amendments may be made. It is anticipated that the legislation will come into force by the end of June 2020.
This blog (the first in a series of blogs about this new measure) outlines the key provisions of the moratorium and how it will work.