Key Points
SAW (SW) 2010 Ltd & Anor v Wilson & Ors [2017] EWCA Cif 1001 (25 July 2017)
The Court of Appeal has held that the validity of a floating charge (and the appointment of joint administrators under that floating charge pursuant to paragraph 14 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986) does not depend on the existence of uncharged assets of the company at the time of its creation, nor upon the power of the company to acquire assets in the future.
BACKGROUND
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
Key Points
- Floating charge is valid even where there are no unencumbered assets at the time it is taken
- Crystallisation of prior ranking floating charge does not impact enforceability of second ranking floating charge
The Facts
Key points
Key Points
- Directors cannot file a notice of intention to appoint (NoI) without a ‘settled intention’ to appoint an administrator
- NoIs cannot be used where there is no qualifying floating charge holder (QFCH)
- The judgment has implications for validity of appointments where requirements not met
The Facts
Key Points
- Claims against Kaupthing could not be pursued in the English courts
- No implied restriction on jurisdictional effect under the Winding-up Directive
- Position analogous to Judgments Regulation and Insolvency Regulation
The Facts
Key Points
Key Points
- COMI of Jersey companies held to be in England and Wales
- Argument of improper motive generally insignificant where purpose of administration can be achieved
The Facts
Key Points
- Costs incurred in preparing to comply with disclosure orders not payable by liquidators
- Protection for wasted costs should have been sought earlier in the proceedings
The Facts