When a company enters receivership, a familiar assumption often follows: control has shifted, the receiver is in charge of the named asset(s), and the directors must step aside. But what happens when the very basis of that control is itself under challenge? What happens when the dispute is not simply about managing charged assets, but about whether the receiver should be there at all?
That is the difficult and commercially significant question that lies at the heart of Neconde Energy Limited v FBNQuest Merchant Bank Limited & Ors. At one level, the case arose from a major secured lending and enforcement dispute involving alleged default, the enforcement of security, and the appointment of a Receiver/Manager over valuable oil and gas interests, including Neconde’s interest in OML 42 JV in Delta State, Nigeria. The Lenders had approached the Federal High Court of Nigeria for far-reaching reliefs tied to the enforcement of transaction security and the recovery of very substantial outstanding debt. The approach adopted by the Nigerian Courts in resolving these issues forms the basis of this commentary.
Open PDF to continue reading >>