Archives
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- January 2010
- December 2008
Tag Archives: healthcare management services
Healthcare Management Services v Caremark Properties: largest creditor may prevail
Healthcare Management Services v Caremark Properties: largest creditor may prevail
The Companies Court has held that where there is a conflict between rival creditors and there is nothing to guide the Court in its decision, the views of the majority creditor/s may prevail in relation to the appointment of administrators.
An application was made by Healthcare Management Services (“Healthcare”) for order that Caremark Properties be put into administration. The Court was satisfied as to the appropriateness of making an administration order, but another creditor, Jenmark Limited (“Jenmark”), opposed Healthcare’s choice of administrators. The parties failed to agree on the administrators to be appointed and so the Court was required to make the decision. The Court noted that there was nothing between the rival candidates and that each would not only act but be seen to act in the best interests of the creditors generally (applying the principle in Med-Gourmet Restaurants v Ostuni Investments).
There is a general principle that where the dispute is between one creditor and another, or one group of creditors and another group of creditors, the majority in terms of value must prevail (Fielding v Seery and another). The Court noted that the majority view does not bind it but rather that where there is nothing else to guide the Court, the decision should be made by reference to the majority creditors’ view. The Court therefore found that Jenmark, as the majority creditor , was entitled to have its nominees appointed.
The Court stressed that in other cases, the views of the majority creditor might not prevail, depending on the circustances including factors such as whether the nominated persons have been involved with the company previously and investigated issues that would need to be dealt with in the course of the administration. The Court criticised the parties for failing to reach an agreement on the issue, noting that the dispute had nothing to do with the suitability of the nominees for administrator, but was a symptom of a serious falling-out between the creditors. The Court indicated that similar disputes should be resolved without referring them to court.
Please speak to Richard Baines, Head of Druces LLP’s Business Turnaround, Restructuring and Insolvency team for more information.
Posted in News and Comment
Tagged administration, healthcare management services, high court, jenmark, richard baines
Comments Off