Disclaimer

The nature of disclaimer

Disclaimer is a statutory procedure which is governed by the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) and Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (IR 2016), SI 2016/1024 that empowers liquidators and trustees in bankruptcy (trustees) to disclaim any onerous property (IA 1986, ss 178182 (liquidation) and IA 1986, ss 315321 (bankruptcy)).

Onerous property is in each case defined as:

  1. any unprofitable contract

  2. any other property which is unsaleable or not readily saleable or is such that it may give rise to a liability to pay money or perform any other onerous act

The form of onerous property that is most commonly encountered by office-holders is leasehold property, but disclaimer is in not in any way limited to leases. It applies to any contract or property that falls within the scope of the statutory definitions.

For further reading on what constitutes onerous property, see Practice Note: What is considered onerous property or contracts?

Once disclaimer has occurred then, unless and until a vesting order is sought and obtained, any disclaimed property which is not determined by

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

Fossil secures court approval for innovative UK restructuring plan (Re Fossil (UK) Global Services Ltd)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The High Court sanctioned the restructuring plan of Fossil (UK) Global Services Ltd under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) (the ‘Plan’), following near‑unanimous approval (99.99% by value) from a single class of noteholders, comprising both retail and wholesale creditors. Mr Justice Richards applied the four‑stage test set out by Lord Justice Snowden in Re AGPS Bondco Plc (‘Adler’): (i) whether the statutory requirements were satisfied, (ii) whether the class was fairly represented and voted bona fide in the interests of the class, (iii) whether the plan was fair and could reasonably have been approved (the so‑called ‘limited rationality test’), and (iv) whether any legal ‘blot’ or defect existed. The court placed particular emphasis on the quality and accessibility of information provided to retail creditors, noting that the involvement of an independent Retail Advocate helped ensure that they were properly informed and adequately represented throughout the process. Concerns regarding the participation rights of ‘New‑Money’ providers and the appropriateness of a single class were considered and rejected, with the judge satisfied that all creditors were better off under the Plan than under the relevant alternative. No defects were identified, and expert evidence supported the conclusion that the Plan would likely be recognised in the US, thereby ensuring its cross‑border effectiveness. Written by Brian Rostron, associate at Addleshaw Goddard LLP.

View Restructuring & Insolvency by content type :

Popular documents