Welcome to the R3 Technical Library, a unique resource for searching technical and specialist information within the sector. The below are available resources for Legislation Case Law.
Serene Construction Ltd v Salata and Associates Ltd (formerly Salata & Co Ltd) and others (2 September 2021)
The claimant company unsuccessfully claimed damages, alleging that the second and third defendant receivers' sale of an unbuilt development site, which had been subject to a fixed charge, had been made in breach of their fiduciary duty to take reasonable steps to achieve the best price available. The Chancery Division, applying settled law, ruled, among other things, that it had not been a breach of duty the receivers to have adopted the marketing strategy that they had, and that, having received an offer of £175,000, it had not been a breach of duty to have accepted that, in the circumstances as had been known to them at the time. View
The claimant company unsuccessfully claimed damages, alleging that the second and third defendant receivers' sale of an unbuilt development site, which had been subject to a fixed charge, had been made in breach of their fiduciary duty to take reasonable steps to achieve the best price available. The Chancery Division, applying settled law, ruled, among other things, that it had not been a breach of duty the receivers to have adopted the marketing strategy that they had, and that, having received an offer of £175,000, it had not been a breach of duty to have accepted that, in the circumstances as had been known to them at the time. View
Axnoller Events Ltd v Brake and another; Brake and others v Chedington Court Estate Ltd (17 August 2021)
The Chancery Division made rulings on two applications in proceedings concerning a property dispute. The court held that the applicants had not been 'unfairly prejudiced' by a moratorium that one of the parties had entered under the Debt Respite Scheme (Breathing Space Moratorium and Mental Health Crisis Moratorium) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020, SI 2021/1311. The application to cancel the moratorium would be refused. Further, the applicants' case for an 'unless' order in relation to two earlier costs orders had not been made out, but the case for an 'unless' order regarding to later orders had. View
The Chancery Division made rulings on two applications in proceedings concerning a property dispute. The court held that the applicants had not been 'unfairly prejudiced' by a moratorium that one of the parties had entered under the Debt Respite Scheme (Breathing Space Moratorium and Mental Health Crisis Moratorium) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020, SI 2021/1311. The application to cancel the moratorium would be refused. Further, the applicants' case for an 'unless' order in relation to two earlier costs orders had not been made out, but the case for an 'unless' order regarding to later orders had. View
Absolute Living Developments Ltd (in liquidation) (acting by its liquidator, Louise Mary Brittain) v DS7 Ltd and others (29 June 2021)
The applicant applied for an interim injunction seeking to restrain the first respondent insolvent company and its liquidator from selling properties of the company. The Business and Property Court, dismissing the application, held that, at the stage of an interim injunction, the applicant had failed to establish an arguable case that the sale of the properties was as a result of misconduct. View
The applicant applied for an interim injunction seeking to restrain the first respondent insolvent company and its liquidator from selling properties of the company. The Business and Property Court, dismissing the application, held that, at the stage of an interim injunction, the applicant had failed to establish an arguable case that the sale of the properties was as a result of misconduct. View
Galer v Mond (administrator of SFPL Ltd) and another (15 January 2021)
The applicant, the company's sole director and sole shareholder, failed in his application for an order declaring invalid the appointment of an administrator of that company. The Administrative Court held, among other things, that on the evidence, any allegation that the administrator's appointment would not be in accordance with the statutory purposes of administration, or that there would be any risk of a lack of independence, ought to be and was rejected out of hand. View
The applicant, the company's sole director and sole shareholder, failed in his application for an order declaring invalid the appointment of an administrator of that company. The Administrative Court held, among other things, that on the evidence, any allegation that the administrator's appointment would not be in accordance with the statutory purposes of administration, or that there would be any risk of a lack of independence, ought to be and was rejected out of hand. View
Re A company A v B (11 August 2021)
The applicant petitioning creditor's application for a winding up petition regarding the respondent debtor company failed. The Chancery Division held that the debtor company had demonstrated a prima facie case that there had been a financial effect on the debtor company. The financial effect of the coronavirus pandemic on the debtor company was inextricably linked to its inability to pay the judgment debt. Having made that finding, it followed that the petition had to be dismissed. View
The applicant petitioning creditor's application for a winding up petition regarding the respondent debtor company failed. The Chancery Division held that the debtor company had demonstrated a prima facie case that there had been a financial effect on the debtor company. The financial effect of the coronavirus pandemic on the debtor company was inextricably linked to its inability to pay the judgment debt. Having made that finding, it followed that the petition had to be dismissed. View
Re Amicus Finance plc (in administration) (9 August 2021)
The applicant companies succeeded in their application for an order convening meetings of creditors to consider and, if thought fit, approve a restructuring plan in respect of a related finance company that was in administration. The Chancery Division held that, among other things, the threshold conditions under s 901A of the Companies Act 2006 for proposing a compromise or arrangement were satisfied. View
The applicant companies succeeded in their application for an order convening meetings of creditors to consider and, if thought fit, approve a restructuring plan in respect of a related finance company that was in administration. The Chancery Division held that, among other things, the threshold conditions under s 901A of the Companies Act 2006 for proposing a compromise or arrangement were satisfied. View
Primeo Fund (in official liquidation) v Bank of Bermuda (Cayman) Ltd and another (Cayman Islands) (9 August 2021)
The appellant (Primeo), a Cayman Islands company in official liquidation which carried on business as an open-ended mutual investment fund, successfully appealed in relation to losses suffered as a result of the fraudulent Ponzi scheme operated by Bernard Madoff, through his company (BLMIS) from the respondents, who Primeo contended had breached their duties as it's administrator and custodian. The Privy Council held that the transfer to another company of Primeo's rights in the BLMIS investments had not had the effect of removing Primeo's rights to claim against the respondents in respect of its investments in BLMIS. Further, the Court of Appeal had erred in holding that the common wrongdoer requirement was satisfied in relation to the respondents: the reflective loss rule only applied to exclude a claim by a shareholder where what was in issue was a wrong committed by a person who was a wrongdoer both as against the shareholder and as against the company. View
The appellant (Primeo), a Cayman Islands company in official liquidation which carried on business as an open-ended mutual investment fund, successfully appealed in relation to losses suffered as a result of the fraudulent Ponzi scheme operated by Bernard Madoff, through his company (BLMIS) from the respondents, who Primeo contended had breached their duties as it's administrator and custodian. The Privy Council held that the transfer to another company of Primeo's rights in the BLMIS investments had not had the effect of removing Primeo's rights to claim against the respondents in respect of its investments in BLMIS. Further, the Court of Appeal had erred in holding that the common wrongdoer requirement was satisfied in relation to the respondents: the reflective loss rule only applied to exclude a claim by a shareholder where what was in issue was a wrong committed by a person who was a wrongdoer both as against the shareholder and as against the company. View
Re Ipagoo LLP (in administration) (30 July 2021)
The administrators of a company in administration sought the answers to two questions. The Chancery Division held that, first, Regs 20-22 and 24 of the Electronic Money Regulations 2011, SI 2011/99 (the EMR) did not create a statutory trust in favour of electronic money holders, but gave a statutory right for them to be paid out of relevant funds in priority to all other creditors on the terms set out in Reg 24 (of the EMR). Second, the definition of 'asset pool' in Reg 24 included a sum equal to any relevant funds which ought to have been, but had not been, safeguarded under Regs 20-22 by means of two safeguarding options. View
The administrators of a company in administration sought the answers to two questions. The Chancery Division held that, first, Regs 20-22 and 24 of the Electronic Money Regulations 2011, SI 2011/99 (the EMR) did not create a statutory trust in favour of electronic money holders, but gave a statutory right for them to be paid out of relevant funds in priority to all other creditors on the terms set out in Reg 24 (of the EMR). Second, the definition of 'asset pool' in Reg 24 included a sum equal to any relevant funds which ought to have been, but had not been, safeguarded under Regs 20-22 by means of two safeguarding options. View
Re Peter Herbert Fowlds (a bankrupt) (30 July 2021)
The appellant trustees in bankruptcy appealed a decision refusing to grant relief requiring the respondent to repay a preferential payment under s 340 of the Insolvency Act 1986 on the basis that the respondent had established a change of position so as to refuse relief. The Chancery Division, dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had erred in finding that a change of position of the transferee amounted to a defence under s 340, but that the judge had been correct to find that there were factors that had justified refusing the trustee's claim in the instant case. View
The appellant trustees in bankruptcy appealed a decision refusing to grant relief requiring the respondent to repay a preferential payment under s 340 of the Insolvency Act 1986 on the basis that the respondent had established a change of position so as to refuse relief. The Chancery Division, dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had erred in finding that a change of position of the transferee amounted to a defence under s 340, but that the judge had been correct to find that there were factors that had justified refusing the trustee's claim in the instant case. View
Re a company (1 July 2021)
Company – Compulsory winding up. The applicant company's application for an order restraining the respondent company from presenting a winding-up petition against it succeeded. The respondent sought the recovery of sums allegedly due for consultancy services. The Chancery Division held that the matter was plainly unsuitable for disposal by way of winding-up proceedings. View
Company – Compulsory winding up. The applicant company's application for an order restraining the respondent company from presenting a winding-up petition against it succeeded. The respondent sought the recovery of sums allegedly due for consultancy services. The Chancery Division held that the matter was plainly unsuitable for disposal by way of winding-up proceedings. View
Quick Draw LP v Global Live Events LLP (in liquidation) and others (29 June 2021)
Practice – Pre-trial and post judgment relief. Following a decision in which adverse findings had been made against him, the second defendant applied to set aside a final order on the basis that there had been a breach of the rules of natural justice in the proceedings. The Chancery Division, dismissing the application, held that there had been no breach of natural justice by allowing the claimant's closing submissions to follow those of the defendants in the action. View
Practice – Pre-trial and post judgment relief. Following a decision in which adverse findings had been made against him, the second defendant applied to set aside a final order on the basis that there had been a breach of the rules of natural justice in the proceedings. The Chancery Division, dismissing the application, held that there had been no breach of natural justice by allowing the claimant's closing submissions to follow those of the defendants in the action. View
Re Hurricane Energy plc (28 June 2021)
Company – Arrangement. The applicant company unsuccessfully applied for an order sanctioning a restructuring plan. In dismissing the application, the Chancery Division held that despite the court having jurisdiction to sanction the restructuring plan under Pt 26A of the Companies Act 2006, as decided in [2021] All ER (D) 83 (May), the discretion provided in s 901G of the Act to sanction a plan under condition A was not satisfied. That was because, among other things, the relevant alternative involved on each side's case allowed for the company's continued profitable trading for at least a further year and there was a realistic prospect that the company would be able to discharge its obligations to the bondholders, leaving assets with at least potential for exploitation, which was enough to refute the contention that the shareholder members, as the dissenting class, would be no better off under the relevant alternative than under the plan, as required by s 901F of the Act. Accordingly, the discretion as to whether to sanction the plan did not fall to be exercised. View
Company – Arrangement. The applicant company unsuccessfully applied for an order sanctioning a restructuring plan. In dismissing the application, the Chancery Division held that despite the court having jurisdiction to sanction the restructuring plan under Pt 26A of the Companies Act 2006, as decided in [2021] All ER (D) 83 (May), the discretion provided in s 901G of the Act to sanction a plan under condition A was not satisfied. That was because, among other things, the relevant alternative involved on each side's case allowed for the company's continued profitable trading for at least a further year and there was a realistic prospect that the company would be able to discharge its obligations to the bondholders, leaving assets with at least potential for exploitation, which was enough to refute the contention that the shareholder members, as the dissenting class, would be no better off under the relevant alternative than under the plan, as required by s 901F of the Act. Accordingly, the discretion as to whether to sanction the plan did not fall to be exercised. View
Re Microcredit Ltd Microcredit Ltd (Malta) v Rosler (as liquidator of Microcredit Ltd) (17 June 2021)
Company – Meeting. The Chancery Division made rulings in proceedings concerning the administration of a company. The court held that the applicant creditor's application for further time for making an application would be extended, and the respondent liquidator's application for an adjournment would be refused. Further, another creditor ought not to have been admitted to vote at a meeting where an increase to the liquidator's fee estimate had been allowed. View
Company – Meeting. The Chancery Division made rulings in proceedings concerning the administration of a company. The court held that the applicant creditor's application for further time for making an application would be extended, and the respondent liquidator's application for an adjournment would be refused. Further, another creditor ought not to have been admitted to vote at a meeting where an increase to the liquidator's fee estimate had been allowed. View
Re Hyde and others (joint administrators of BetIndex Ltd) (8 June 2021)
View
View
Axnoller Events Ltd v Brake and another; Brake and others v Chedington Court Estate Ltd (4 June 2021)
View
View
Manolete Partners plc v Hayward and Barrett Holdings Ltd and others (2 June 2021)
View
View
Re Melars Group Ltd Melars Group Ltd (in liquidation) v East-West Logistics LLP (28 May 2021)
View
View
Nero Holdings Ltd v Young (28 May 2021)
View
View
Lemos v Church Bay Trust Company Ltd and others (10 May 2021)
View
View
Mitchell and another (joint liquidators of MBI International & Partners Inc (in liquidation)) v Al Jaber and others (21 April 2021)
View
View
Further Information & Articles
Ben LuxfordFind INSOLVENCY & RESTRUCTURING ADVICE
R3 members can provide advice on a range of business and personal finance issues. To find an R3 member who can help you, click below.
