Debussy Dtc Plc & Ors v Solutus Advisors & Ors

Debussy Dtc Plc & Ors v Solutus Advisors & Ors

The Amendment Application is refused because Ground 2 can be advanced in the Financial List proceedings, expedited hearing would prejudice Defendants, no real prejudice to Claimants in waiting, and the grounds are interconnected and not suitable for preliminary determination.

Parties
Claimant: Debussy DTC PLC; Claimant: U. S. Bank Trustees Limited (Security Agent); Claimant: U. S. Bank Trustees Limited (Issuer Security Trustee); Claimant: Elavon Financial Services DAC (Facility Agent); Defendant: Solutus Advisors Limited; Defendant: Neil Joseph Forkin; Defendant: Bollinway Properties Limited; Defendant: Toys “R” Us Properties (UK) Limited; Defendant: Timothy Rolleston Gilbert Perkin; Defendant: John David Barber
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Application / Ruling on Amendment Application
Outcome
Amendment Application refused
Legal Topics
Appointment of Administrators, Late Amendment, Fair Dealing Rule, Administration Order, Commercial Mortgage Backed Securitisation
Insolvency Company Law Commercial Law Appointment of Administrators Late Amendment Fair Dealing Rule Administration Order Commercial Mortgage Backed Securitisation

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

Parties

Debussy DTC PLC

Claimant

U. S. Bank Trustees Limited (Security Agent)

Claimant

U. S. Bank Trustees Limited (Issuer Security Trustee)

Claimant

Elavon Financial Services DAC (Facility Agent)

Claimant

Solutus Advisors Limited

Defendant

Neil Joseph Forkin

Defendant

Bollinway Properties Limited

Defendant

Toys “R” Us Properties (UK) Limited

Defendant

Timothy Rolleston Gilbert Perkin

Defendant

John David Barber

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application / Ruling on Amendment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application to amend the Appointment Application to introduce Ground 2 should be allowed
  2. 2 Whether Ground 2 should be determined as a preliminary issue
  3. 3 Whether the appointment of administrators is appropriate before trial of Financial List proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The Amendment Application is refused because Ground 2 can be advanced in the Financial List proceedings, expedited hearing would prejudice Defendants, no real prejudice to Claimants in waiting, and the grounds are interconnected and not suitable for preliminary determination.

Court Disposition

Amendment Application refused

Orders

  • Costs of strike out and interim order applications to be costs in the Financial List trial; winner to recover costs.