This recent decision has opened up a new opportunity for creditors who are not satisfied with a proposal to put forward their own restructuring plan.
Background
Good Box Co Labs Limited (the Company), a fintech start-up, developed contactless payment technologies in the charity sector.
It entered administration in June 2022 on the application of NGI Systems Limited (NGI) a principal technology supplier, creditor and shareholder of the Company.
CargoLogicAir Limited (the Company) was the UK's only all-cargo main deck freight airline. Due to sanctions imposed on its Russian owner, the Company was unable to effectively trade and pay its debts as they fell due despite obtaining a 'Basic Needs Licence'. Its sole director applied to appoint administrators.
Issues
The court considered two key issues:
On 7 December 2022, the European Commission published its proposal for a directive harmonising certain aspects of insolvency law (the Insolvency Directive).
The Insolvency Directive seeks to offer more certainty and create a common minimum standard of insolvency regimes across member states, encouraging more effective cross-border investment.
It aims to harmonise three key areas of EU insolvency law (the Insolvency Directive).
Aims law:
the recovery of assets
the efficiency of proceedings
On 7 December 2022, the European Commission published its proposal for a directive harmonising certain aspects of insolvency law (the Insolvency Directive).
Aims
The Insolvency Directive seeks to offer more certainty and create a common minimum standard of insolvency regimes across Member States, encouraging more effective cross-border investment.
It aims to harmonise three key areas of EU insolvency law:
the recovery of assets
the efficiency of proceedings, and
Re Bitumina Industries Ltd (in administration); Manning and another v Neste AB and another [2022].
This was an application by joint administrators for directions on the validity of a floating charge granted to a connected party at a 'relevant time' and seemingly invalid under s245 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the Act).
Background
The recent High Court decision in Re Nostrum Oil & Gas plc [2022] EWHC 2249 (Ch) considers a scheme of arrangement where creditors are the target of Russian sanctions.
Background
Key points
Where the underlying liability on which a bankruptcy order is made is subsequently set aside, the correct remedy is rescission under s.375(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986.
Annulment under s.282(1)(a) is the appropriate remedy when, on grounds existing at the time of making the bankruptcy order, the order ought not to have been made.
The facts
Key point
In certain circumstances the court will look to parallel statutory provisions where existing applicable statute does not accommodate the situation, as long as the latter is not offended, expanded or altered by doing so.
The facts
This application for directions was brought by the administrators of Lehman Brothers Europe Ltd (the “Company”) on:
Key Points
- Statutory powers are to be exercised in accordance with a company’s articles of association
- The Duomatic principle cannot simply be used as a bandage to cure a company’s procedural errors
The Facts
This appeal considered whether the sole director of a company, whose articles required two directors for its board meeting to be quorate, could validly appoint administrators under paragraph 22 Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986.
Key points
- The dismissal of the appellant’s previous application for an annulment of a bankruptcy order was a serious procedural irregularity
- A court may annul a bankruptcy order under s 282 IA 1986 if it is satisfied that the order ought not to have been made based on grounds existing at the time the order was made
- In relation to appeals made pursuant to s 375 IA 1986 to review or rescind the decision of a lower court, the court may consider fresh material.
The facts