Administration order meaning

Administrator appointed by the court Where the court appoints an administrator under paragraph 11 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), following an application by the company, its directors and/or one or more creditors, the title deeds should include certified copies of: the administration order; and any further order(s) under IA 1986, Sch B1, paras 91–95 appointing a new administrator after the death, resignation or removal from office of the original or any later administrator Administrator appointed by holder(s) of qualifying charge, the company or its directors Where the administrator is appointed by the holder(s) of a qualifying floating charge (IA 1986, Sch B1, para 14) or by the company or its directors (IA 1986, Sch B1, para 22), the title deeds should include certified copies of: the notice of appointment: in a form complying with IA 1986, Sch B1, para 14 and the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules...

Background Statutory declarations form an essential component of insolvency processes, arising most frequently when a company proceeds by members’ voluntary liquidation (MVL) under section 89 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), and also when administration is commenced by an out-of-court appointment in accordance with the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (IR 2016), SI 2016/1024, r 3.17. Section 20 of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835 (SDA 1835) sets out the required form of the declaration, as contained in the Schedule to that Act. Under SDA 1835, s 19, a fee is payable, the amount of which is fixed by the Commissioners for Oaths (Fees) Order 1993, SI 1993/2297. The fee is £5 for taking an affidavit, declaration, or affirmation, together with an additional £2 for each exhibit referred to therein that must be marked, or for every schedule that is required to be marked. Save for prescribing the template of the statutory declaration and making provision for the relevant fees, no further formal requirements are stipulated. Accordingly, the...

Administrator appointed by the court Where the court appoints an administrator under paragraph 11, Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), following an application by the company, its directors and/or any one or more of its creditors, the title deeds must contain certified copies of: the administration order; and any subsequent order(s) under IA 1986, Sch B1, paras 91–95 appointing a new administrator on the death, resignation or removal of the original or any successor The Administrator must also register a notice of appointment at: Companies House; and the Register of Inhibitions, using a form that complies with the Insolvency (Scotland) (Company Voluntary Arrangements and Administration) Rules 2018 (ISCVAAR 2018), SI 2018/1082, r 3.27 Administrator appointed by holder(s) of qualifying charge, the company or its directors Where appointment is made by the holder(s) of a qualifying floating charge (under IA 1986, Sch B1, para 14) or by the company or its directors...

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) under the Trump administration has signalled it will deploy every instrument at its disposal—including the FCPA and the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA)—to go after such targets. What, then, should compliance professionals understand about where FCPA and ATA risks intersect? At face value, the FCPA and ATA seem to address separate exposures: the FCPA tackles bribery of overseas officials, whereas the ATA centres on, among other matters, supplying material support to, or aiding and abetting, foreign terrorist organisations (FTOs). In reality, though, these hazards can collide—especially in markets with significant FTO presence—producing concurrent exposure. Background On 20 January 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order No 14157, directing, among other measures, that specified international cartels and other transnational criminal organisations (TCOs) be classified as FTOs. Since February 2025, the US State Department has designated 11 organisations—primarily in Latin America—as FTOs. These listings carry meaningful consequences: the ATA imposes broad civil and criminal liability for furnishing material support to FTOs, and permits asset forfeiture...

In this issue: Lending Security Debt capital markets Derivatives Cryptoassets Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Useful information Lending Nova Leipzig Sarl v Gravity Fitness Ltd [2025] EWHC 1262 (Comm) An application to the Commercial Court sought a stay on the basis of forum non conveniens. The court held that Gravity Fitness Limited, an English company, had not satisfied its burden on the ‘More Appropriate Forum’ question. The defendant’s reliance on the potential application of German law was insufficient to establish that Germany was a more suitable forum than England, whether viewed from the parties’ interests or the broader interests of justice. Security Brooke Homes (Bicester) Ltd v Portfolio Property Partners Ltd (in administration) [2025] EWHC 1305 (Ch) This dispute examines equitable rights and duties between secured creditors after development land was sold by the first-ranking mortgagee, Desiman. The second-ranking creditor, Brooke Homes, sought an equitable account and pressed...

In this issue: Banking and Finance case round-up Lending Security Debt capital markets Derivatives Regulation for derivatives lawyers Securitisation and structured products Restructuring Technology in banking & finance transactions Regulation for banking lawyers Scotland Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Useful information Banking and Finance case round-up Banking & Finance—November 2024 case round-up For a summary of the cases we flagged in Banking & Finance during October 2024, refer to News Analysis: Banking & Finance—November 2024 case round-up. Lending Re KRF Services (UK) Ltd [2024] EWHC 2978 (Ch) The judgment addressed a High Court application for an administration order, heard in that court, and centred on two key points of interest: (i) whether the sole director’s resolution to seek an administration order was effective; and (ii) the effect of the sanctions regime. On the first question, the court examined the company’s unamended Model...

The general prohibition Under section 19 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA 2000), no person may undertake regulated activities in the UK unless they are authorised or fall within an exemption. This is referred to as the general prohibition. For guidance on the territorial reach of this restriction, see Practice Note: Territorial scope of the prohibition. Under FSMA 2000, s 31, an authorised person is one who: has been granted permission by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) or the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) under FSMA 2000, Pt 4A to carry on specified regulated activities; or is a Gibraltar-based person with a Schedule 2A permission to carry on one or more regulated activities. Please note that this latter provision, inserted by section 22(1), (2) of the Financial Services Act 2021, is not yet in force...

Variation of Will or intestacy after death—Q&As An instrument of variation can be used to alter how a deceased person’s estate is distributed under a Will or on intestacy. It is commonly executed by deed. To secure effectiveness—typically to obtain favourable inheritance tax (IHT) and capital gains tax (CGT) treatment under section 142 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (IHTA 1984) and section 62(6) of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (TCGA 1992)—certain formalities must be met. These include that the deed is in writing, contains the requisite statement applying the statutory provisions, is not made for any extraneous consideration, and is signed by all relevant parties, including the deceased’s personal representatives (PRs) where additional tax would otherwise arise. For guidance on deeds of variation, see Practice Note: Variation of Will or intestacy after death. See also Practice Note: Post-death rearrangements. Compliance with these requirements will usually deliver the intended IHT and CGT position. The formalities for execution of variation should be followed accordingly. Precedent deed of variation...

The outcome of an administration will frequently hinge on the worth of the company’s assets and the administrator’s capacity to handle those assets freely so as to secure the best possible result for creditors as a whole. The administrator is granted extensive powers to deal with property, including assets encumbered by various forms of security and quasi-security (for example, hire purchase or retention of title arrangements). A key advantage of administration is the protection created by the moratorium against enforcement by creditors, which permits the administrator to proceed without the constraints the company may have experienced before administration. The administrator may intend to sell or otherwise deploy charged property in order to meet one of the purposes of the administration, while, by contrast, a creditor may wish to enforce its security and recover what it is entitled to from a company it regards as at risk. These competing requirements need to be held in balance between administrator and creditor...

INSOLVENCY ACT APPLICATION NOTICE Case No: [ insert case number ]. Court: High Court (Business and Property Courts, Insolvency and Companies List (ChD)) OR Business and Property Courts in [ insert location ] OR County Court at [ insert location ] (Business and Property Work). In the matter of [ insert company’s name ] and the Insolvency Act 1986. Parties: [ Insert Applicant(s) ] v [ Insert Respondent(s) ]. Under IR 2016 r 18.23. Parties and addresses: Applicants [ names/addresses ]; Respondents [ names/addresses ]. Application relates to [ details ]. Judge: [ level ]. Venue: [ court/hearing centre ]. Ref: [ number ]. Orders sought: Fix remuneration at £[ insert sum ] plus VAT; disbursements £[ insert sum ]. Costs to be an expense of the [ liquidation/administration ]. Any further order or relief the court considers appropriate. Grounds: witness statement of [ name ], dated [ date ]. Service/notice: [ names/addresses, if any, or none ]. Address for...

Applicant: [ NAME OF WITNESS ] First witness statement; Dated: [ insert ] — Exhibit: [ XX1 ] — Court ref. no: [ INSERT COURT REF. NUMBER ] [ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE ] Business and Property Courts [ of England and Wales ] [ in [ INSERT LOCATION ] ] [ Company & Insolvency List (ChD) ] Or [ in the County Court at [ INSERT LOCATION ] ] [ Business and Property Courts List ] Or [ in the High Court of Justice ] [ Chancery Division ] In the matter of [ INVESTMENT BANK NAME ]; in the matter of the Investment Bank Special Administration Regulations 2011; and in the matter of the Insolvency Act 1986 WITNESS STATEMENT OF [ WITNESS NAME ] I, [ witness name ], being a director [ and chairperson ] of [ investment bank name ] of [ investment bank address ], state as follows: I serve as [...

CASE NO: [ insert case number ] [ WITHIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES, INSOLVENCY AND COMPANIES LIST (ChD); ALTERNATIVELY, AT THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS IN [ insert location ], INSOLVENCY AND COMPANIES LIST (ChD); OR AT COUNTY COURT SITTING AT [ insert location ], BUSINESS AND PROPERTY WORK ] BEFORE [DEPUTY] INSOLVENCY AND COMPANIES COURT JUDGE...

As outlined in Practice Note: Intestacy—summary and Entitlement on intestacy—flowchart, the order of entitlement on intestacy is set out within section 46 of the Administration of Estates Act 1925 (AEA 1925)...

Where a lease is silent, items left at the premises after expiry of the term remain owned by the tenant (or any other third-party owner). The landlord, as a result, becomes an involuntary bailee of those items. This can create difficulties for a landlord aiming to clear the space for re-letting or another purpose, and may involve additional expense. In particular, the landlord: cannot take or dispose of the items, and must act in a manner that is right and reasonable may face liability in conversion, or for wrongful interference with goods, if the items are sold, damaged or discarded These exposures can be managed by using the procedures in the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 (T(IG)A 1977), either by serving notice or asking the court for permission to sell the items. Serving notice is the route more often used in day-to-day practice in most cases overall...

Insolvency Rules 2016 (IR 2016), SI 2016/1024, Part 14 Part 14 of the Insolvency Rules 2016 (SI 2016/1024), which sets out how creditors’ claims are dealt with, also operates in a members’ voluntary liquidation (MVL) by reason of r 14.1(1). That rule confirms that this Part applies to administration, winding up and bankruptcy proceedings, without any restriction confining its operation to insolvent liquidations. What amounts to a provable debt in a winding up (and equally in administration and bankruptcy) is defined by r 14.2(1). Save as otherwise provided in that rule, every creditor’s claim is provable as a debt against the company or the bankrupt, whether the liability is present or future, certain or contingent, ascertained or recoverable only in damages. For further guidance, see Practice Note: Future debts, contingent debts, secured debts...