The Legal Effect of Appointment and Possession of a Receiver Over the Property of a Company
Abstract
A receiver in an action is an impartial person appointed by the court to collect and receive, pending the proceedings, the rents, issues, and profits of land or personal estate that it does not seem reasonable to the court that either party should collect or receive, or to enable the same to be distributed among the persons entitled. The appointment of a receiver does not in any way affect the right to the property over which he is appointed. The court takes possession of its receiver, and his possession is that of all parties to the action according to their titles. The receiver does not collect the rents and profits by virtue of any estate vested in him but by virtue of his position as an officer of the court appointed to collect property upon the title of the parties to the action. In the case of a fixed or floating charge, receivers and managers are appointed either by the court or by the debenture holders. In this article, we shall examine the legal effects of the appointment of a receiver by the court and out-of-court systems over the property of a company. This research is carried out using textual and contextual analysis.
References
Abell, M., Lombart, A., Waldt, D. C., & de Mergelina, R. B. (2009). When insolvency strikes. Int'l J. Franchising L., 7, 33.
Adefi, O. M. (2011). Streamlining the Powers and Duties of a Receiver/Manager and Liquidator in the Organization of a Company: An Antidote for Corporate Governance. Nnamdi Azikiwe University Journal of International Law and Jurisprudence, 2.
Adkins, L. D., & Billyou, D. F. (1956). A Proposed New Form of Security for the Senior Debt of Our Airlines and Railroads: Floating Charges. Bus. Law., 12, 378.
Aina, K. (2015). Rethinking the duties of a receiver and powers of directors of companies in receivership under Nigerian law. http://ir.library.ui.edu.ng/handle/123456789/3496
Atkinson, R. (1997). Unsettled standing: who (else) should enforce the duties of charitable fiduciaries. J. Corp. L., 23, 655.
Barrett, G. (1996). The Effect of Insolvency on the Contract of Employment. Dublin ULJ, 18, 15.
Bowles, G., & GOW, H. (2003). The Position of Materials Re Payment and Ownership in Construction Projects in the UK. In Construction Conflict Management and Resolution (pp. 269-274). Routledge.
Burns, F. R. (1992). Automatic Crystallisation of Company Charges: Contractual Creativity or Confusion?. Australian Business Law Review, 20(2), 125.
Collins, L. (1978). Floating charges, receivers and managers and the conflict of laws. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 27(4), 691-710.
Cox, R. W. (1981). Social forces, states and world orders: beyond international relations theory. Millennium, 10(2), 126-155.
de Lacy, J. (1987). Anglo-Irish Retention of Title: The Current Position. Irish Jurist (1966-), 22(2), 212-227.
Esangbedo, G. (2022). Conceptual or Pragmatic? Differentiating Floating Charges from Unitary Security Interests under Nigerian Law. Journal of African Law, 66(3), 491-514.
Finch, V. (1999). Security, insolvency and Risk: who pays the price. Mod. L. Rev., 62, 633.
Goode, R. (2009). Goode on Legal Problems of Credit and Security. (4th edition). Sweet & Maxwell.
Goode, R. M. (1983). Is the Law Too Favourable to Secured Creditors. Can. Bus. LJ, 8, 53.
Goodhart, W. (1986). Clough Mill Ltd. v. Martin. A Comeback for Romalpa?. The Modern Law Review, 49(1), 96-102.
Gu, M. (2010). Understanding Chinese company law (Vol. 2). Hong Kong University Press.
Hammond, R. G. (1990). Personal property: commentary and materials. Oxford University Press.
High, J. L. (2000). A Treatise on the Law of Receivers (Vol. 2). Beard Books.
Irvine, L. (2001). The law: an engine for trade. The Modern Law Review, 64(3), 333-349.
Kalu, U. C., Okafor, E. F., & Olekanma, B. (2012). Floating charge: A child of equitable circumstance and its hybrid disposition. Nnamdi Azikiwe University Journal of International Law and Jurisprudence, 3, 155-169.
Locke, N. (2008). Security granted by a company over its movable property: the floating charge and the general notarial bond compared. Comparative and international law journal of southern Africa, 41(1), 136-154.
Locke, N. (2008). Security granted by a company over its movable property: the floating charge and the general notarial bond compared. Comparative and international law journal of southern Africa, 41(1), 136-154.
Mitchell, J. (2016). Retention of Title Clauses: A Key to the Romalpa Maze. Legal Issues J., 4, 77.
Naseem, G. (2006). The Application of Federal Common Law to Overcome Conflicting State Laws in the Supplemental Disgorgement Proceedings of an SEC Appointed Receiver. Seton Hall Cir. Rev., 3, 31.
Nkolo, C. E. (2022). Problems of Enforcement of Floating Charge in Nigeria. Law and Social Justice Review, 3(1).
Nwauche, E. S. (2005). The duties of a receiver/manager in Nigeria and Ghana. International Insolvency Review: Journal of the International Association of Insolvency Practitioners, 14(1), 71-91.
Onamson, O. (2017). Law and Creditor Protection in Nigeria. African Books Collective.
Oshisanya, L. I. (2022). An Almanac of Contemporary and Continuum of Jurisprudential. Almanac Foundation.
Owolabi, S. A., & Obida, S. S. (2012). Liquidity management and corporate profitability: Case study of selected manufacturing companies listed on the Nigerian stock exchange. Business Management Dynamics, 2(2), 10-25.
Pennington, R. R. (1960). The genesis of the floating charge. The modern law review, 23(6), 630-646.
Scott, A. W. (1949). The fiduciary principle. Calif. L. Rev., 37, 539.
Smith Jr, C. W., & Warner, J. B. (1979). On financial contracting: An analysis of bond covenants. Journal of financial economics, 7(2), 117-161.
Tribe, J. P. (2001). The morality of Romalpa clauses in corporate insolvency: a case for reform?. Insolvency Law & Practice, 17(5).
Walton, R. (Ed.). (1963). Kerr on the Law and Practice as to Receivers. Sweet et Maxwell.
Yeo, V. (1997). Visiting an Old Friend-The" Romalpa" Clause. SAcLJ, 9, 250.
Authors who publish with Tamaddun journal agree to the following terms:
1. Authors retain the copyright and grant Tamaddun the right of first publication. The work will be licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits others to share the work with proper acknowledgment of the authorship and initial publication in this journal.
2. Authors may enter into additional non-exclusive agreements for the distribution of the published version of their work (e.g., posting it to an institutional repository or including it in a book), provided that the initial publication in this journal is acknowledged.
3. Authors are encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their personal websites) before and during the submission process. This can lead to productive exchanges and increase the visibility and citation of the published work.
