Applications after recovery of surplus funds to repay creditors of Lehmann Brothers Ltd. The court had given orders as to the several uses of the surpluses. The parties appealed some elements of those orders.
Held: Most elements were upheld, but some varied.
Lewison LJ pointed out at when paying the interest, the administrator acts as agent of the company pursuant to paragraph 69 of Schedule B1, and, as in the case of a company in liquidation, legal title to the assets from which the interest is paid remains vested in the company.
Briggs LJ said that, although ‘the statutory scheme provides no detailed machinery for dealing with’ non-provable liabilities, ‘they have always been dealt with in accordance with Judge-made principles’.
Moore-Bick VP CA, Lewison, Briggs LJJ
 EWCA Civ 485,  Ch 50,  BPIR 1035,  BCC 431,  3 WLR 1205,  WLR(D) 218,  2 BCLC 433
Insolvency Act 1986
England and Wales
At ChD – Re Lehman Brothers International (Europe) and Others ChD 14-Mar-2014
On the winding up of the company, there had unexpectedly been a surplus of assets after payment of all debts. The court was now asked to determine claims to be allowed before a distribution was made.
Held: The court made declarations as . .
At CA – LB Holdings Intermediate 2 Ltd, The Joint Administrators of v Lehman Brothers International (Europe), The Joint Administrators of and Others SC 17-May-2017
In the course of the insolvent administration of the bank, substantial additional sums were received. Parties appealed against some orders made on the application to court for directions as to what was to be done with the surplus.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.546770