The Facts

The liquidator of a company refused to requisition a meeting of creditors on the basis that it was being called by the potential defendants to actions arising out of his investigations with the purpose of removing him and stymying any claims. The liquidator applied to Court for a direction not to summon the meeting.

The Decision

Following obiter comments in the recent Court of Appeal decision in JCAM Commercial Real Estate XV Limited v David Haulage Limited[1]practitioners must now review their stance on the use of a Notice of Intention to Appoint Administrators (“NoI”) where there is no qualifying floating charge holder (“QFCH”). This is a blow to the flexibility of the administration process as a rescue procedure.

This case raised what is an often-discussed issue amongst insolvency practitioners and lawyers but one which, until now, has not been addressed fully by the courts, namely "does a company (or its director(s)) have to have a "settled intention" to appoint an administrator in order to file a Notice of Intention ("NOI") pursuant to paragraph 27 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 ("Schedule B1")?".

This article was first published in the LexisNexis Corporate Rescue and Insolvency Journal (2017) 2 CRI 45.

Key Issues

Section 216 continues to apply to prohibit the re-use of a name or sufficiently similar name where oldco and newco have common directors.

The relevant rules now dealing with the exceptions are contained in new rules 22.1 - 22.7.

The three exceptions remain broadly the same but there are some key differences to note.

Exceptions to the prohibition

The case confirmed that the provisions of the CPR apply to applications for an extension of time to apply for rescission of a winding up order. The case further stated that any such extensions of time should be exceptional and for a very short period.

Facts

On 6 April 2017, new Insolvency Rules came into force which will affect creditors’ rights in most insolvency procedures. More information on the insolvency changes generally are available in this blog post.

Facts

Facts

This case concerned the rejection by the liquidators of Saff One LLP (‘LLP’) of a proof of debt lodged by ESS. The issue was whether a tax mitigation structure involving a loan to LLP for purported investment in the Ultra Green Scheme gave rise to a provable debt if the monies ‘loaned’ passed in a circle and no such investment was made.

Facts

A Trustee in Bankruptcy (‘TiB’) applied for committal of a bankrupt (‘B’) for contempt for repeated failure to provide financial information sought in conjunction with an application for an Income Payment Order (‘IPO’).