The power to appoint an administrator under the 2015 Insolvency Act

Introduction – The Insolvency Act 2015

Prior to the enactment of the Insolvency Act, No. 18 of 2015 (IA 2015) corporate insolvency in Kenya was governed by the repealed Companies Act (Cap. 486 of the Laws of Kenya), as read in conjunction with certain provisions of the repealed Bankruptcy Act of Kenya (Cap. 53 of the Laws of Kenya).

The primary purpose of the IA 2015 was therefore to inter alia amend and consolidate the law relating to the insolvency of incorporated and unincorporated bodies; to provide for the liquidation of incorporated and unincorporated bodies (including ones that may be solvent); and to provide as an alternative to liquidation, procedures that would enable the affairs of insolvent entities to be administered for the benefit of their creditors.

Of special interest for our purposes is the IA 2015’s introduction of the device of administration, replacing the appointment of receiver managers under the repealed Companies Act, and in turn enabling financially distressed companies to continue operating as going concerns. However, to benefit from the power to appoint an administrator without recourse to court, one must be the holder of a qualifying floating charge as defined under s534(1), IA 2015, and it is precisely herein that lies the conundrum which is the focus of this article.

Securities pre-dating The Insolvency Act 2015

The primary issue in contention is whether the holder of a debenture created prior to the coming into force of the IA 2015 qualifies to appoint an administrator pursuant to the provisions of s534 of the Act. In this regard, the Kenyan High Court has delivered two conflicting decisions.

Re Arvind Engineering Ltd [2019]

The first of these conflicting decisions is Re Arvind Engineering Ltd [2019], wherein the Company contested the appointment of an administrator by NIC Bank on the basis that the bank’s debenture pre-dated the coming into force of the IA 2015, and as such the debenture did not meet the threshold of a ‘qualifying floating charge’ as defined under s534(1) of the IA 2015.

The bank advanced the argument that since its debenture empowered it to appoint a receiver manager under the repealed Companies Act, then that power is deemed to include the power to appoint an administrator under the IA 2015. The bank further contended that barring it from appointing an administrator would mean that no holder of a pre-2015 debenture would be entitled to appoint an administrator suo moto, as they would be constrained to seek an appointment through the court.

In its reasoning, the court focused on the definition of a ‘receiver manager’ and noted that the duties and functions of a receiver manager are almost homogenous to those of an administrator. In particular, the court noted that a receiver manager (in distinction to a receiver) is obliged to act in the best interests of not only the debenture holder, but of the company in general, which is also a central objective of administration as per s522 of the IA 2015.

In conclusion, the court held that it was important not to disadvantage holders of debentures which pre-date the IA 2015, emphasising the need to give the provisions of s524 of the IA 2015 a purposive, as opposed to a restrictive, interpretation. Therefore, as the debenture in question allowed the bank to appoint a receiver manager, whose powers and functions are akin to that of an administrator, then the bank was deemed to have the power to appoint an administrator.

I&M Bank Ltd v ABC Bank Ltd & anor [2021]

In distinction to the matters in dispute in Re Arvind Engineering, the dispute in I&M v ABC emanated from the competing interests and rights of two secured creditors – one of whom held debentures pre-dating the IA 2015 (ABC Bank), while the other held debentures registered after the coming into force of the IA 2015 (I&M).

In a position comparable to that taken in Re Arvind Engineering, ABC submitted that since its debenture allowed it to appoint a receiver manager, whose powers and functions are similar to those exercisable by an administrator appointed under the IA 2015, its appointment of an administrator as opposed to a receiver manager was inconsequential and should be allowed to stand.

In opposing ABC’s appointment of an administrator, I&M submitted that the effect of s534 of the IA 2015 is that only creditors holding a qualifying floating charge (as defined) could appoint an administrator. For those who do not hold a qualifying floating charge, their recourse lay in making a formal application to court for the appointment of an administrator.

In arriving at its decision, the court agreed with the position taken by I&M and departed from the reasoning in Re Arvind Engineering. The court held that while the functions and duties of a receiver manager appointed under a debenture are conterminous with those of an administrator appointed under the IA 2015, this does not mean that the holder of a pre-2015 debenture is allowed to appoint an administrator. The court based its reasoning having regard to s520 of the IA 2015, which ascribes a specific meaning to the term ‘administrator’ and relates it to the manner of appointment rather than to the functions.

The court therefore held that while the powers of a receiver manager appointed under a debenture, and the powers of an administrator appointed under the IA 2015, may be conterminous, they cannot be equated to one another, and nor can the power to appoint a receiver manager be equated to appointment of an administrator by the holder of a qualifying floating charge.

In concluding, the Judge held that the debenture issued in favour of ABC was not a qualifying floating charge within the meaning of s534(2) of the IA 2015, and consequently ABC could not appoint an administrator without making an application to the court as a creditor under s532(1) of the IA 2015. However, the court also held that ABC is entitled to appoint a receiver manager under the debenture, as this power is specifically preserved under the transitional provisions of the IA 2015 (in particular, s734(2) thereof.

Analysis and conclusion

What is glaringly obvious from the above analysis is that the IA 2015 is still in its nascent form, and the bounds of its applicability to securities pre-dating its coming into force is a matter that is evolving and yet to be conclusively determined.

Of note is that the Court of Appeal has yet to settle the law and make a pronouncement on whether a party holding a pre-2015 debenture is entitled to invoke the provisions of s534 of the IA 2015 and appoint an administrator on its own motion, or whether such a party is constrained to make a formal application before court for an administration order pursuant to s532 of the IA 2015.

This article is for informational purposes only and should not be taken to be or construed as a legal opinion. If you have any queries or need clarifications, please do not hesitate to contact John Mbaluto, FCIArb (john@oraro.co.ke),
Eva Mukami (emukami@oraro.co.ke) or Radhika Arora (radhika@oraro.co.ke), or your usual contact at our firm, for legal advice.

Enforcement of foreign judgments in Israel

After obtaining a favourable judgment in a foreign country, one may wish to enforce the judgment in Israel. This is the case, for example, when the debtor has assets in Israel or when the successful litigant seeks to enforce compliance with the provisions of the judgment on an Israeli citizen or company. As in many other judicial systems, a judgment rendered by a foreign country is not automatically recognised in Israel and must undergo an ‘acceptance’ proceeding to gain legal status – whether for the purpose of being enforced, ie, being executed, or in order to be recognised. Continue reading “Enforcement of foreign judgments in Israel”

What is commercial litigation?

In Egypt, a commercial dispute arises between business entities (such as partnerships and corporations of different types) and/or merchants as defined generally under the Egyptian Commercial Law. Commercial litigation in Egypt is similar to commercial litigation in other civil law jurisdictions such as France and the rest of the MENA region in regards to both form and function. Any litigant that has previously litigated in a civil law jurisdiction will not find any real surprises in commercial litigation in Egypt. Continue reading “What is commercial litigation?”

I want to break free: opting out of class litigation

 

Conventional wisdom tells us there is ‘power in numbers’, but that is not always true in litigation. While class actions are a powerful tool – particularly where damages to each injured party are relatively small – they can also be cumbersome. Class-action proceedings can take years to wind themselves through United States courts. The cases are expensive. And courts have made it more difficult to obtain class certification in recent years. Continue reading “I want to break free: opting out of class litigation”

Class dismissed: the future of group litigation in the UAE

Once the preserve and a staple of US litigation, in recent years class action claims have gained traction in the English courts across a wide variety of sectors. Recent disputes have involved securities and shareholder litigation against financial institutions like RBS and Lloyds/HBOS, claims against large companies such as Tesco, actions arising out of breaches of data protection legislation against British Airways, easyJet and Morrisons, and arising out of product liability such as the VW diesel emissions testing scandal. Another area of significant growth for class actions in the UK has been in competition law, and the Supreme Court recently provided important guidance on the certification of collective action procedures before the Competition Appeals Tribunal in its landmark decision in MasterCard Incorporated & ors v Merricks [2020]. Continue reading “Class dismissed: the future of group litigation in the UAE”

A guide to litigating contracts in New Zealand

Earlier this year, New Zealand’s highest court issued a decision clarifying when and how evidence of parties’ dealings will be admissible to support arguments before the courts on contractual interpretation. The decision signals a departure from the New Zealand approach to date and the approaches in a number of other Commonwealth jurisdictions, in particular the United Kingdom, and highlights that contracting in New Zealand may give rise to particular practical considerations, both at the time of contracting and also when litigating contractual interpretation issues. Continue reading “A guide to litigating contracts in New Zealand”

Commercial litigation focus: the Bahamas

Overview of the Bahamian legal system

The Bahamas is a former colony of Great Britain, which attained independence on 10 July 1973 but acknowledges the Queen of England as its constitutional Head of State and maintains its identity as a common law jurisdiction. By the Declaratory Act passed in 1799, the English common law was declared to be the law of The Bahamas along with a superstructure of English statutes to which were added a succession of local statutes enacted by the local Parliament progressively. Continue reading “Commercial litigation focus: the Bahamas”