CORPORATE RESCUE CULTURE: REALITIES AND LIMITATIONS OF THE EXISTING LAWS OF THE UNITED KINGDOM

Authors

  • Farqaleet Khokhar LL.B (Hons) Scholar University Gillani Law College, Bahauddin Zakariya University Pakistan
  • Kashif Javed PhD Scholar Zhengzhou University
  • Aatir Rizvi LLM Cambridge, (UK); MPhil International Relations (PU)
  • Dr. Muhammad Ramzan Assistant Professor, Department of Law, Lahore Leads University, Lahore

Keywords:

Insolvency of a Corporation, Administration, liquidation, Institutional concerns

Abstract

Two choices are available to a corporation when it is in financial distress. These choices are either to rescue or to terminate the coiporate body. This piece discusses the main procedure of corporate rescue which is administration. The Cork Report 1982 has structured the legal regime on insolvency more specifically, founding the grounds for a corporate rescue culture. The main issue of discussion is whether or not the culture of coiporate rescue has been nourished since the Cork Report with regards to the administration in the light of the Enteiprise Act 2002 despite that there is occasionally an apparent assumption in favour of the presence of a coiporate rescue culture in the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom. This piece scrutinizes the policy issues and practical features of the coiporate rescue, administration management complexities, and moratoria implications. The article further inspects institutional concerns and pinpoints the inconsistencies in the judicial attitude of the UK. The article also provides a comparative perspective highlighting that the United Kingdom can leam the lesson for improvements of its existing laws from the United States although several Achilles heels exist in the United States laws.

References

A.C.R Davis, “ Compromise or fudge? Reflections on the law of the UK as it affects the taxation of insolvent companies” (2010) 2 B.T.R. 149

B. Xie, “ Protecting the interests of general unsecured creditors in pre-packs: the implication and implementation of SIP 16” (2010) 31 Company Lawyer 189.

Bacon, “ Administrative costs: some welcome news” (2007) 20(1) Insolv. Int. 1.

Bankruptcy Code s.364. The DIP “ super priority” financing facility is in place to effectively rescue assets of the debtor’s estate; Usually by a liberal construction of Insolvency Act 1986 Sch.Bl (Sch.Bl added by EA 2002) para.99

Belcher, “ The Economic Implications of Attempting to Rescue Companies” in H. Rajak (ed.), Insolvency Law Theory and Practice (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1993), p.237.

Downloads

Published

2022-09-30

How to Cite

Khokhar, F. ., Javed, K., Rizvi, A. ., & Ramzan, D. M. . (2022). CORPORATE RESCUE CULTURE: REALITIES AND LIMITATIONS OF THE EXISTING LAWS OF THE UNITED KINGDOM. The Journal of Contemporary Issues in Business and Government, 28(3), 582–591. Retrieved from https://cibgp.com/au/index.php/1323-6903/article/view/2394

Issue

Vol. 28 No. 3 (2022): The journal of contemporary issues in business and government

Section

Articles

License

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

You are free to:

  1. Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
  2. Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
  3. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.

Under the following terms:

  1. Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
  2. No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

Notices:

You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .

No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.