|
Akers v Lomas Subject: Insolvency Keywords: Administrative receivers; Disclosure; Documents Summary: administrative receivers; disclosure; working papers of administrative receiver; entitlement of liquidator of linked company to disclosure Abstract: A, one of the liquidators of a company, TPL, incorporated in the British Virgin Islands, sought an order pursuant to the Insolvency Act 1986 s.236(3) for production of the working papers and litigation related documents held by R, the administrative receivers appointed in relation to a linked company. R opposed the application, contending that s.236(3) was directed to those records which formed part of the property of the company and did not encompass documents which came into existence after a company became insolvent or following the appointment of one of the specified categories of office holder. Held, granting the application, that s.236 formed part of a composite code designed to enable office holders to extract information from any person the court considered able to produce orally, or by way of documentation, http://www.ukassignment.org/ relevant information to assist in the winding up of the company, British & Commonwealth Holdings Plc (Joint Administrators) v Spicer & Oppenheim [1993] A.C. 426 applied and North Australian Territory Co, Re (1890) L.R. 45 Ch. D. 87 and Rolls Razor Ltd (No.2), Re [1970] Ch. 576 considered. In seeking to determine such an application the court should adopt a conservative approach and ensure that the office holder seeking production reasonably required the information sought to assist in the performance of his duties. There were strong public interest considerations in enabling A to formulate the material needed to ascertain precisely which assets were held by TPL and assert any relevant claims. Disclosure should not however extend to any documents liable to reveal the strategy adopted by the receivers in the receivership. Judge: Patten, J. Counsel: For A: Ewan McQuater. For L: Matthew Collings Solicitor: For A: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer. For L: Denton Wilde Sapte British & Commonwealth Holdings Plc (Joint Administrators) v Spicer & Oppenheim Rolls Razor Ltd (No.2), Re |
 |
|||
| 网站地图 |
