68
(1)
Subject to sub-paragraph (2), the administrator of a company shall manage its affairs, business and property in accordance with—
(a)
any proposals approved under paragraph 53,
(b)
any revision of those proposals which is made by him and which he does not consider substantial, and
(c)
any revision of those proposals approved under paragraph 54.
(2)
If the court gives directions to the administrator of a company in connection with any aspect of his management of the company’s affairs, business or property, the administrator shall comply with the directions.
(3)
The court may give directions under sub-paragraph (2) only if—
(a)
no proposals have been approved under paragraph 53,
(b)
the directions are consistent with any proposals or revision approved under paragraph 53 or 54,
(c)
the court thinks the directions are required in order to reflect a change in circumstances since the approval of proposals or a revision under paragraph 53 or 54, or
(d)
the court thinks the directions are desirable because of a misunderstanding about proposals or a revision approved under paragraph 53 or 54.
Cases considering Schedule B1, paragraph 68 26
[2020] EWHC 1370 (Ch) · 29 May 2020Limits
Applies the requirement that administrators manage the company’s affairs, business and property in accordance with approved proposals, subject to permitted revision and court directions. (see paras [23], [28], [35])
Limits the court’s power to give directions concerning the administrators’ management during the administration. (see paras [23], [28])
[2017] EWHC 2405 (Ch) · 31 August 2017Limits
Applies the court’s power to give directions concerning administration management. The power was not available to reinstate the receivers because the approved proposals engaged the restrictions in paragraph 68(3) (see paras [46]-[48]).
Limits the court’s power to give directions after approval of administrators’ proposals. Because there was no relevant change of circumstances or misunderstanding, a direction reinstating the receivers was barred (see paras [46]-[48]).
[2017] EWHC 2031 (Ch) · 3 August 2017
Applied as requiring administrators to manage the company in accordance with approved proposals, subject to permitted revisions and court directions. The proposal was held consistent with the 2008 proposals because it advanced creditor recoveries and facilitated settlement (see paras [69]-[75]).
Considered in relation to the court’s power to give directions concerning management. The directions were permissible because they were consistent with the approved proposals and reflected the circumstances of the administration (see paras [70]-[75]).
6 more judgments, and what each says about Schedule B1, paragraph 68, are in the
case-law panel in the full Act.