³ÉÈËÓ°Òô

Receivership


This note gives an overview of the types of receiverships available and some of the effects of appointing a receiver.

The appointment of a receiver is a remedy for creditors and other third parties to protect their interest in assets. They can be appointed by a court, or by a vesting document, and their powers are usually limited to the appointment document, compared to other office-holders such as liquidators and administrators.

Types of receivership

There are several different types of receivers:

  1. •

    fixed charge receiver or Law of Property Act receiver (LPA receiver)

  2. •

    administrative receiver

  3. •

    court-appointed receiver

  4. •

    Proceeds of Crime Act receiver

  5. •

    Agricultural Credits Act receiver

For more detailed information, see Practice Note: Receivership—an introductory guide.

Fixed charge receiver or Law of Property Act receiver (LPA receiver)

A mortgagee can appoint an LPA receiver pursuant to section 101(1)(iii) of the Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA 1925) whereas a fixed charge receiver is appointed pursuant to the terms of the fixed charge contained in the security document. The terms LPA receiver and fixed charge receiver are often, confusing, used interchangeably. In practice,

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with ³ÉÈËÓ°Òô or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL
Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Restructuring & Insolvency News

Presentation of winding up petition prevented by lender’s potential misrepresentation (Alpha Schools (Holdings) Ltd v Signal Alpha III Fund LP)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: This was an application for an injunction to restrain presentation of a winding up petition. The respondent was a company which asserted that it was entitled, pursuant to a term sheet prepared during loan negotiations, to a £350,000 break fee and certain other sums. The applicant’s main argument was that it had a cross-claim in misrepresentation which meant that (1) the term sheet, to the extent that it had contractual force, had been rescinded and (2) there was in any event a damages claim large enough to extinguish the alleged debt. It was held that there was sufficient evidence of misrepresentation to meet the test. The applicant was entitled to an injunction. Written by Nora Wannagat, barrister at Tanfield Chambers.

Restructuring & Insolvency weekly highlights—19 December 2024

This week's edition of Restructuring & Insolvency weekly highlights includes: the publication by the Insolvency Service of its monthly insolvency statistics for November 2024, an examination of the meaning of ‘unregistered company’ under section 220(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) (East Riding of Yorkshire Council v KMG), analysis of the Commercial Court’s guidance on pleading and proving claims under IA 1986, s 423 (Invest Bank PSC v El-Husseini), plus a round-up of other news and cases for restructuring and insolvency professionals.

Challenge to administrators’ conduct dismissed (Re CJFL Property Partners Ltd; Nardelli v Richardson)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The court dismissed the applicants’ applications to remove and replace the joint administrators. The administrators’ decisions fell within the range of decisions that were open to them, even though further renegotiations with the secured creditor (Desiman) and the purchaser’s ‘chipping’ at the purchase price during turbulent economic conditions eroded the prospect the applicants would receive an economic return in the administration. In that respect, Desiman could be said to have driven a hard commercial bargain, but that was not a circumstance for which the administrators were ultimately responsible. Nor was it sufficient for any of the allegations to be made out. Written by Samuel Parsons, barrister at Erskine Chambers.

Court of Appeal clarifies when a dissolved partnership may bring litigation (Flohr v Frontiers Capital I Ltd Partnership)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the authority to bind a firm for the purposes of its winding up (conferred on partners after the dissolution of a partnership by section 38 of the Partnership Act 1890 (PA 1890)) applies to pursuing causes of action which accrued prior to dissolution. Whether PA 1890, s 38 will permit partners of a dissolved partnership to pursue litigation post-dissolution is a fact sensitive question. The question is whether such litigation is reasonably required in all the circumstances to wind up the affairs of the partnership. Relevant considerations are not circumscribed and will include considerations of prospects of success and cost-effectiveness. In Flohr, the Court of Appeal confirmed a general partner of a limited partnership governed by the Limited Partnership Act 1907 (LPA 1907) was empowered to sue a third party on behalf of the partnership notwithstanding the dissolution and winding up of the partnership. This was so even though the relevant cause of action arose prior to dissolution. Written by James Fagan, Barrister, at Radcliffe Chambers.

View Restructuring & Insolvency by content type :  
News
Practice notes
Precedents
Q&As

Popular documents

What is a statutory declaration of solvency and what happens if a false declaration of solvency is made?

What is a statutory declaration of solvency and what happens if a false declaration of solvency is made?Statutory declaration of solvencyA company enters voluntary liquidation when its members vote to do so by a special resolution. For further information, see Practice Note: What is a members’

Failure of the company voluntary arrangement (CVA)

Failure of the company voluntary arrangement (CVA)There is no definition of ‘failure’ of a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) in the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986). It does not explain when failure will take place, or what its effect will be.However, IA 1986 does recognise that an arrangement may

Application for an injunction to restrain presentation of a winding-up petition (Just Trays Ltd v Emu

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: Just Trays Ltd (JTL) responded to a statutory demand served by Emu Products Ltd (EPL) with an application to restrain the presentation of a winding-up petition, on grounds that there was a clear and substantial dispute concerning the debt claimed in the statutory

A company subject to a winding-up petition settles the petition debt prior to advertisement and agrees

A company subject to a winding-up petition settles the petition debt prior to advertisement and agrees with the petitioning creditor that an order will be sought at the hearing dismissing the petition. Notwithstanding non-advertisement of the petition, if a third party creditor indicates its
What is a statutory declaration of solvency and what happens if a false declaration of solvency is made?

What is a statutory declaration of solvency and what happens if a false declaration of solvency is made?

What is a statutory declaration of solvency and what happens if a false declaration of solvency is made?Statutory declaration of solvencyA company enters voluntary liquidation when its members vote to do so by a special resolution. For further information, see Practice Note: What is a members’

Failure of the company voluntary arrangement (CVA)

Failure of the company voluntary arrangement (CVA)

Failure of the company voluntary arrangement (CVA)There is no definition of ‘failure’ of a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) in the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986). It does not explain when failure will take place, or what its effect will be.However, IA 1986 does recognise that an arrangement may

Application for an injunction to restrain presentation of a winding-up petition (Just Trays Ltd v Emu

Application for an injunction to restrain presentation of a winding-up petition (Just Trays Ltd v Emu

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: Just Trays Ltd (JTL) responded to a statutory demand served by Emu Products Ltd (EPL) with an application to restrain the presentation of a winding-up petition, on grounds that there was a clear and substantial dispute concerning the debt claimed in the statutory

A company subject to a winding-up petition settles the petition debt prior to advertisement and agrees

A company subject to a winding-up petition settles the petition debt prior to advertisement and agrees

A company subject to a winding-up petition settles the petition debt prior to advertisement and agrees with the petitioning creditor that an order will be sought at the hearing dismissing the petition. Notwithstanding non-advertisement of the petition, if a third party creditor indicates its