London Resort Company Holdings Limited, Re

London Resort Company Holdings Limited, Re

The Company committed multiple irremediable breaches of the CVA by failing to issue shares within the required period, transferring a material asset without supervisor consent or notice, and ceasing to trade. Each breach, unremedied within 30 days, triggered the mandatory termination and winding up provisions under paragraph 56 of the proposal. The Supervisor was obliged to act and failed to do so. The Company's cross-application was misconceived and incompetent as the court has no power to vary or stay a CVA.

Parties
Applicant: Paramount Licensing Inc.; First Respondent/supervisor: William Anthony Batty; Second Respondent/company: The London Resort Company Holdings Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Insolvency Application (cva Supervision) / Judgment on S 7(3) Insolvency Act Application and Cross Application
Outcome
Application granted; cross-application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Company Voluntary Arrangement (cva), Supervisor's Duties, Breach of Statutory Contract, Winding Up, Material Irregularity, Asset Disposition
Insolvency Company Law Company Voluntary Arrangement (cva) Supervisor's Duties Breach of Statutory Contract Winding Up Material Irregularity Asset Disposition

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paramount Licensing Inc.

Applicant

William Anthony Batty

First Respondent/supervisor

The London Resort Company Holdings Limited

Second Respondent/company

Procedural Posture

Insolvency Application (cva Supervision) / Judgment on S 7(3) Insolvency Act Application and Cross Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Company was in irremediable breach of the CVA terms
  2. 2 Whether the Supervisor was obliged to issue a certificate of termination and petition for winding up
  3. 3 Whether the Company's cross-application for a stay or variation of the CVA could succeed

Ratio Decidendi

The Company committed multiple irremediable breaches of the CVA by failing to issue shares within the required period, transferring a material asset without supervisor consent or notice, and ceasing to trade. Each breach, unremedied within 30 days, triggered the mandatory termination and winding up provisions under paragraph 56 of the proposal. The Supervisor was obliged to act and failed to do so. The Company's cross-application was misconceived and incompetent as the court has no power to vary or stay a CVA.

Court Disposition

Application granted; cross-application dismissed.

Orders

  • Declaration that the Company is in irremediable breach of the CVA.
  • Direction to the Supervisor to issue a certificate of termination by midday 11 October 2024.