Provisional liquidator

What is a provisional liquidator?

A provisional liquidator is either the official receiver or a licensed insolvency practitioner (IP) who is appointed under section 135 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) in respect of a company which is subject to a winding-up petition before the company is wound up by the court, or the winding-up petition has been heard or dealt with.

IA 1986, s 135 is supplemented by the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (IR 2016), SI 2016/1024, rr 7.337.39.

Why are provisional liquidators appointed?

The main reason why a provisional liquidator is appointed is because urgent steps are required to take control of the company and secure its assets due to the risk that the company's creditors will otherwise suffer loss. The appointment of a provisional liquidator is therefore necessary to preserve the company's assets until the company is wound up by the court

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

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Restructuring & Insolvency News

Commercial Court gives guidance on pleading and proving claims under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (Invest Bank PSC v El-Husseini)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The Commercial Court dismissed a claim under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) that the first defendant (Mr El-Husseini) had transferred valuable assets to eight transferee defendants, being his family members, companies under their control and a discretionary trust, with the purpose of putting the assets beyond reach of the claimant (Invest Bank) as a potential creditor. The court held that the allegations advanced at trial were of serious wrongdoing amounting to dishonest behaviour or disreputable conduct which accordingly required a clear pleading of a sufficiently cogent case. Invest Bank had not properly pleaded in its particulars of claim the primary facts on which it sought to rely at trial in raising its case based on inference against the defendants. A positive case as to the financial difficulties of one of the key companies was only raised in a reply to the defence of one of the eight defendants. In any event, without expert accountancy evidence as to the state of finances of the key companies the court could not draw any inferences as to Mr El-Husseini’s purpose. The court also declined to draw adverse inferences from Mr El-Husseini’s failure to participate in the proceedings after a failed jurisdiction challenge, and he gave guidance on the law and practice in that regard. Written by Tiffany Scott KC, barrister at Wilberforce Chambers.

View Restructuring & Insolvency by content type :

Popular documents