Administration is no better for creditors than receivership
He concludes that there is no net difference as a result of two opposing factors:
there are higher gross realisations in administrations - due, Armour suggests, to higher accountability to junior creditors incentivising administrators to maximise realisations;Intuitively, the explanation of higher administration realisations works at the margins. An administrator has a statutory priority of objectives and "getting the bank out" is last (as opposed to being the sole objective in receiverships).
but dispersed creditor governance allows administrators to charge retail fee rates rather than the lower wholesale rates negotiated by secured creditors.
But the retail/wholesale fees rationale is less persuasive. Bank panel firms are not always able simply to abandon wholesale rates once the bank is repaid. The fact is that administrations, with their heavier burden of broad obligations to creditors, including significant additional statutory reporting and compliance requirements, and a primary duty to have the company and its business continue as a going concern if possible, are simply more complex and costly procedures than receiverships.
Date: 8th October, 2007
Articles from this Author
23rd March, 2018
20th July, 2017
Recast European Insolvency Regulation
26th June, 2017
The Recast European Insolvency Regulation (the “Recast EIR”)
28th November, 2016
Corporate Advisory Services & Brexit
Contact a Partner
For the latest Mercer & Hole news, visit our LinkedIn page mercer-&-hole