INTRODUCTION 

The Supreme Court has recently in its judgment dated 21 January 2020, in the case of Standard Chartered Bank v MSTC Limited [SLP (C) No 20093 of 2019], provided clarity on the interplay between the provisions of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 (RDB Act) and Limitation Act 1963 (Limitation Act). Supreme Court has in doing so refused to condone a delay of 28 days in filing of a review application by the government borrower entity against a decree in favour of the bank.  

BRIEF BACKGROUND: 

Key Points

• A binding contract by exchange of email did not arise where parties were simply exploring a potential deal.

• Sale by auction is often appropriate where an asset is difficult to value.

• Where no differential treatment of creditors, unfair harm requires that a decision does not withstand logical analysis.

The Facts

Investors may, for reasons outside of their control, find themselves with a financially distressed company in their portfolio and possibly in unfamiliar territory. Consequently, it is not just those investors who actively seek out opportunities within the distressed space who should be mindful of the implications of insolvency processes (most commonly administration which can often also be used as part of a wider restructuring).

Key points

• Failure to comply with sections 333 and 363 of the Insolvency Act constitutes contempt of court for which a committal order may be obtained.

• A trustee in bankruptcy should not usually require permission to apply for a committal order.

• Correct procedure for application confirmed by the court.

Key points

• Information obtained by compulsion can be shared between officeholders of connected estates (parent/subsidiary)

• There must, however, be a possibility that there will be a surplus in the subsidiary estate

• The prospect must be real as opposed to fanciful

The facts

Key points

• Court reiterated circumstances in which it will sanction a proposed course of action by administrators

• Requirement that the course of action be “particularly momentous”

• Court sanctioned proposed settlement in the circumstances

The Facts

Key Points

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