Limited partnerships

A limited partnership consists of one or more:

•
general partners; who are liable for all of the debts and obligations of the firm
•
limited partners; who do not take part in the management of the partnership business nor have power to bind the firm

A limited partnership, like a general partnership, is not a separate legal entity (see Practice Notes: The nature of a limited partnership and its legal framework and Limited partnership agreements).

Applicable legislation

Applicable legislation includes:

•
the Partnership Act 1890 (the PA 1890)
•
rules of equity and common law applicable to partnerships, subject to the provisions of the Limited Partnerships Act 1907 (the LPA 1907)
•
the Insolvent Partnerships Order 1994 SI 1994/2421 (IPO 1994)—which applies certain provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) and Insolvency Rules 2016, SI 2016/1024 to partnerships, subject to necessary modifications and treats limited partnerships like general partnerships for insolvency purposes (see General partnerships and insolvency—overview)
•
the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 (CDDA) (see Practice Note: Partnerships and the disqualification regime)

The Insolvency

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

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Restructuring & Insolvency News

Charging order made final following successful fraudulent trading claim (Re Courtside Recycling Ltd (in liquidation))

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: Deputy Insolvency and Companies Court Judge Frith has made final an interim charging order in respect of the joint matrimonial home of Mr Crabb, a judgment debtor following a successful fraudulent trading claim and his wife. Mrs Crabb sought unsuccessfully to invoke trust and proprietary estoppel arguments in support of the proposition that she held the sole beneficial interest in the property over which the charging order had been made. Written by Phillip Patterson, barrister, Gatehouse Chambers.

Early disclosure applications in director disqualification claims (Lawless v The Secretary of State for Business and Trade and others)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The court refused applications for specific and non-party disclosure in directors’ disqualification proceedings. Before serving evidence, Mr Lawless (the director) sought correspondence between the Secretary of State and the liquidators contending it would show that adequate records had been provided and that any perceived inadequacy stemmed from the liquidators’ misunderstanding. Insolvency and Companies Court Judge Agnello KC dismissed the applications on relevance grounds. The issue at trial will be whether the companies’ books and records were objectively adequate. Communications showing the liquidators’ views did not bear on that question and were therefore irrelevant and unnecessary for a fair trial. In obiter, the court affirmed that specific disclosure may be sought at any stage, even in CPR Part 8 proceedings. The concurrent non-party disclosure application against the liquidators was also criticised as lacking merit as identical documents were sought from the Secretary of State, a party to the proceedings. Written by Ololade Saromi, barrister at Five Paper.

The importance of brevity and purpose in administrators’ blessings (Dolfin v Firestone)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: Dolfin v Firestone concerned two applications, one by the joint special administrators of a company in special administration pursuant to the Investment Bank Special Administration Regulations 2011 (IBSAR 2011), SI 2011/245 seeking approval of a wide-ranging ‘protocol’ governing the conduct of the administration, and the other by clients of that company seeking a direction for an interim distribution of client moneys and a declaration that the administrators had not performed their function of returning client assets as quickly or efficiently as was reasonably practicable. The court did not approve the protocol. The administrators, as experienced professionals, could not expect to receive the court’s protection across such a spread of issues. Nor would the court make a declaration as part of the directions procedure where the issues were best suited for trial. Although an order for interim distribution was made, the court noted the possibility of seeking a Benjamin order for a more focussed protection. Written by Piers Digby, barrister at Radcliffe Chambers.

Provisional liquidators’ powers and retrospective ratification (Aerovías Del Continente Americano v Versilia Solutions)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The judgment in Aerovías Del Continente Americano S.A. and other companies v Versilia Solutions Ltd relates in particular to three aspects of provisional liquidations. First, the importance of ensuring that the scope of the order appointing provisional liquidators confers all the powers they can anticipate requiring. Second, the need to return to court to vary the appointing order and/or seek directions where the powers originally conferred turn out to be insufficient. Third, confirmation of the court's power to retrospectively ratify the actions of provisional liquidators under its overall supervisory control functions. The court signalled that, while it was prepared to grant relief in this case, such applications are likely to receive closer scrutiny from here on, and practitioners should ensure that provisional liquidation orders are drafted with sufficient foresight. Written by Sam Fenwick, partner and Rhian Bevan trainee solicitor, at Wedlake Bell.

View Restructuring & Insolvency by content type :

News