Rajnesh Mittal & Anor v Edouard Berthier & Ors

Rajnesh Mittal & Anor v Edouard Berthier & Ors

Given the late but substantive objection by Mr Berthier and other bondholders, and the fact that liquidation would allow further investigation into potential claims against former directors without materially prejudicing other creditors, it would be unsatisfactory to dissolve ACL22 and thereby extinguish these opportunities. Therefore, ACL22 should be put into liquidation and the administrators discharged.

Parties
Applicant and Joint Administrator: Rajnish Mittal; Applicant and Joint Administrator: Jonathan Dunn; Respondent (bondholder): Edouard Berthier; Respondents: 16 other Bondholders
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Insolvency (administration and Liquidation) / Application for Discharge of Administrators and Determination of Company Fate (dissolution or Liquidation)
Outcome
Applications for discharge of administrators granted; ACL Astute 2006 Limited to be dissolved; ACL Astute 2022 Limited to be wound up (liquidation ordered)
Legal Topics
Discharge of Administrators, Company Dissolution, Company Liquidation, Creditors' Rights, Investigation of Directors' Conduct
Insolvency Law Company Law Discharge of Administrators Company Dissolution Company Liquidation Creditors' Rights Investigation of Directors' Conduct

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rajnish Mittal

Applicant and Joint Administrator

Jonathan Dunn

Applicant and Joint Administrator

Edouard Berthier

Respondent (bondholder)

16 other Bondholders

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Insolvency (administration and Liquidation) / Application for Discharge of Administrators and Determination of Company Fate (dissolution or Liquidation)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether administrators should be discharged from liability under paragraph 98 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986
  2. 2 Whether ACL Astute 2022 Limited should be dissolved or put into liquidation after administration
  3. 3 Whether further investigation into directors' conduct is warranted

Ratio Decidendi

Given the late but substantive objection by Mr Berthier and other bondholders, and the fact that liquidation would allow further investigation into potential claims against former directors without materially prejudicing other creditors, it would be unsatisfactory to dissolve ACL22 and thereby extinguish these opportunities. Therefore, ACL22 should be put into liquidation and the administrators discharged.

Court Disposition

Applications for discharge of administrators granted; ACL Astute 2006 Limited to be dissolved; ACL Astute 2022 Limited to be wound up (liquidation ordered)

Orders

  • Administrators discharged from liability under paragraph 98 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 for both companies
  • ACL Astute 2006 Limited to be dissolved following administration