This month we consider the court's refusal to imply an obligation into a loan agreement that a lender should take steps in foreign proceedings to preserve security; the court's view on the failure to heed alarm bells in relation to potential undue influence; and more cases and issues affecting the industry.

No implied term in a loan agreement that creditor should take steps in foreign proceedings to preserve security

Can a company file a notice of intention to appoint an administrator (NOI) if administration is just one of a number of potential options being explored for rescuing the company?

Should an administrator’s appointment be terminated where the motives of the appointor are improper but the statutory purpose of the administration can still be properly achieved?

98% of the liabilities of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in administration) (“LBIE”) were denominated in non-sterling currencies. The fall in sterling after LBIE entered administration resulted in significant paper losses for creditors, which they sought to recover from the LBIE estate. The recent decision of the UK Supreme Court in Waterfall I refused to recognize such claims.*

In a comprehensive judgment arising out of the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the UK Supreme Court recently determined the ranking of creditors.

Principally, the Court held that Lehman Brothers International (Europe)'s subordinated debt holders were "at the bottom of the waterfall", behind statutory interest and non-provable debt claimants.

On 24th August 2016 the claimant issued protective proceedings against four defendants for damages in excess of £10 million in relation to alleged defects in the design and construction of a high bay warehouse and associated infrastructure ("the Works"). The third defendant ("Twintec") was responsible for the design and construction of a steel fibre reinforced concrete slab, which formed part of the Works, and was insured by Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance PLC ("RSA").

The Court of Appeal has confirmed that a company must have a settled intention to appoint an administrator before it can file a notice of intention to appoint and benefit from the interim moratorium that applies as a result. We cover this, and other issues affecting the insolvency and fraud industry, in this month's update:

This article was first published in Insolvency Intelligence 2017, 30(5), 85-87.

In an earlier edition of this publication I identified what appeared to be a growing trend for the making of a draconian form of order suspending the discharge of bankruptcies. This form of order is typically associated with the case of Mawer v Bland where Mrs Justice Rose upheld on appeal the following order made by Chief Registrar Baister:

Procedural framework

Paragraphs 49 to 55 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 provide the statutory framework within which administrators seek approval of their proposals.

An administrator must make a statement setting out proposals for achieving the purpose of the administration within eight weeks of the company’s entry into administration and the administrator must seek a decision from the company’s creditors as to whether the creditors approve those proposals or not.

The Facts

Three former managers of a Russian company sought security for costs from its liquidator in respect of hearings to set aside a recognition order obtained by the liquidator pursuant to the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (the CBIR) and for documents pursuant to Section 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986.

The Decision