|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions >> Contrarian Funds Llc v Lomas & Ors  EWHC 1687 (Ch) (23 May 2014)
Cite as:  Bus LR 1186,  EWHC 1687 (Ch),  WLR(D) 233,  BUS LR 1186,  BPIR 1259,  2 BCLC 651
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Buy ICLR report:  Bus LR 1186] [View ICLR summary:  WLR(D) 233] [Help]
Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
B e f o r e :
| IN THE MATTER OF LEHMAN BROTHERS INTERNATIONAL (EUROPE) (IN ADMINISTRATION) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE INSOLVENCY ACT 1986
CONTRARIAN FUNDS LLC
|- and -
|ANTHONY VICTOR LOMAS
STEVEN ANTHONY PEARSON
PAUL DAVID COPLEY
JULIAN GUY PARR
(in their capacity as the joint Administrators of Lehman Brothers International (Europe))
Daniel Bayfield (instructed by Linklaters LLP) for the Respondents
Hearing date: 7 May 2014
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice David Richards :
"If a creditor is dissatisfied with the administrator's decision with respect to his proof (including any decision on the question of preference), he may apply to the court for the decision to be reversed or varied. The application must be made within 21 days of his receiving the statement sent under rule 2.77(2)."
"The provisions of CPR rule 3.1(2)(a) (the court's general powers of management) apply so as to enable the court to extend or shorten the time for compliance with anything required or authorised to be done by the [Insolvency] Rules."
This rule was replaced in 2010 by rule 12A.55(2) in identical terms.
"Contrarian is frustrated by the time it has taken to get a thorough response from Orange and intends to demand that Orange immediately provide us with information from Goldman Sachs and either allow us to speak with the Joint Administrators and Linklaters directly about the securities LBIE acknowledges receiving or provide us with a cogent explanation as to why those securities are not the subject of the claim assigned to Contrarian."
The email continued that "Contrarian must obtain satisfactory answers before it can determine the appropriate response to the rejection of its proof of debt by the Joint Administrators." They ended by requesting an additional extension of time.
"Seller [Orange] agrees that upon Buyer's [Contrarian] reasonable request and at the sole expense of Buyer to cooperate with Buyer in connection with the prosecution of any claims, suits or causes of action that Buyer may have against any third persons in respect of the Claim (including, but not limited to, an agreement by Seller to segregate, preserve and, if necessary, make available its files, and to identify and make available, on a reasonable basis, its employees and agents who were originally involved in its decision to conduct business with Debtor [LBIE] as well as the Early Termination and determination of amounts owed there under)."
It appears that in the time since August 2012, Contrarian has taken no steps, whether by proceedings in the courts of New York or otherwise, to enforce the obligations of Contrarian to provide evidence, whether under clause 10 or otherwise.