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")?".

Background

A recent challenge in the High Court by liquidators to recover assets from a director of an insolvent company has highlighted various points of company law. In particular, the court had to consider directors' authority, share buybacks, and transactions between a company and its directors.

The claimant (D) was the managing director and controlling shareholder of the defendant company (the Company). The Company at first had one other director, D's wife, and later a second (W).

The liquidator challenged three transactions:

The recent case of Singularis Holdings Ltd v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Ltd [2017] EWHC 257 (Ch) (Singularis) is an important decision affecting any institution that handles client payments, including banks. It decided that a stock broker was liable in negligence for having breached its duty of care to its customer, Singularis Holdings Ltd (in liquidation) (Singularis), by paying monies out of its client account on the instruction of one of Singularis' directors and its only shareholder, Mr Al Sanea.

Background

The Appeals process is governed by Rules 12.59; 12.61 and Schedule 11. The old corresponding provisions were Rules 7.47 and 7.49A.

The major change to the provisions is that there is now clarification on appealing decisions made by District Judges. The new rules provide that these appeals will now lie either to a High Court Judge in a District Registry or a Registrar in Bankruptcy at the High Court. This was previously the case, but was only inserted into the old rules by way of an Amendment - they now come fully under the scope of the rules.

The recent Court of Appeal case of JCAM Commercial Real Estate Property XV Limited v. Davis Haulage Limited [2017] EWCA Civ 267 has set out the importance of there being a settled intention to enter administration and indicated that this is a pre-requisite to an out of court appointment being validly made.

The out of Court appointment processes are broadly similar to the processes under the Insolvency Rules 1986 with some minor amendments. The most significant change is the abolition of the prescribed forms for appointment documents.

Whatever type of appointment (out of Court by company/directors, out of Court by Qualifying Floating Charge Holder ("QFCH"), application to Court), the Consent to Act form and contents is dealt with by r3.2.

Appointment out of Court by directors/the Company

Speed Read:The recent decision of R v Neuberg serves to further entrench the distinction between the two classes of offences for determining benefit under the confiscation regime.Natasha Reurts provides an overview of the decision and assess the implications for corporate and financial crime cases that follow.

Case Summary

Background

Key Points