Company
Re Taylor Pearson (Construction) Ltd (in administration) [2020] EWHC 2933 (Ch), [2020] All ER (D) 88 (Nov)
The applicant creditors failed in their application, pursuant to paras 74 and/or 75 of Sch B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986, for the revocation of certain proposals submitted by the administrators which were purported to have been deemed approved. In dismissing the application, the Chancery Division decided that the reasons submitted by the applicants for the revocation of the proposals at issue lacked merit. The court further held that, looking at the position more generally, the administrators had all but completed realising assets and had authority to make a distribution to unsecured creditors and had funds to pay preferential creditors. Accordingly, there was little point in placing the company into liquidation, as proposed by the creditors, even if the earlier findings were wrong.
Competition
AB Volvo (Publ) and others v Ryder Ltd and others [2020] EWCA Civ 1475, [2020] All ER (D) 81 (Nov)
In dismissing the appellants’ appeal, the Court of Appeal,
-maryam-naaz-theo-corbett-and-rachel-carter-with-(front-from-left)-arya-vindlacheruvu-and-jessica-ashcroft.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=47f89300_1)
