Once in place, the first task of an administrator is to make proposals to achieve the administration objectives. These should be given to the registrar and unsecured creditors within 10 weeks, followed by a creditor vote to approve the plans by simple majority.[106] If creditors do not approve the court may make an order as it sees fit.[107] However, before then under Schedule B1, paragraph 59 the administrator can do 'anything necessary or expedient for the management of the affairs, business and property of the company'.[108] In Re Transbus International Ltd Lawrence Collins J made the point that the rules on administration were intended to be "a more flexible, cheaper and comparatively informal alternative to liquidation" and so with regard to doing what is expedient "the fewer applications which need to be made to the court the better."[109] This means that an administrator can sell the whole assets of a company immediately, making the eventual creditors' meeting redundant.[110] Because of this and out of court appointments, since 2002, "pre-packaged administrations" became increasingly popular. Typically the company directors negotiate with their bank, and a prospective administrator, to sell the business to a buyer immediately after entering administration. Often to the company's directors are the buyers.[111] The perceived benefits of this practice, originating in the 1980s in the United States,[112] is that a quick sale without hiring lawyers and expending time or business assets through formalities, can be effected to keep the business running and employees in their jobs. The potential downside is that because a deal is already agreed among the controlling interested parties (directors, insolvency practitioners and the major secured creditor) before broader consultation, unsecured creditors are given no voice, and will recover almost none of their debts.[113] In Re Kayley Vending Ltd, which concerned an in-court appointed administrator,[114] HH Judge Cooke held that a court will ensure that applicants for a prepack administration provide enough information for a court to conclude that the scheme is not being used to unduly disadvantage unsecured creditors. Moreover, while the costs of arranging the prepack before entering administration will count for the purpose of administrator's expenses, it is less likely to do so if the business is sold to the former management. Here the sale of a cigarette vending machine business was to the company's competitors, and so the deal was sufficiently "arm's length" to raise no concern. In their conduct of meetings, the Court of Appeal made clear in Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Maxwell that administrators appointed out of court will be scrutinised in the way they treat unsecured creditors. Here the administrator did not treat the Revenue as having sufficient votes against the company's management buyout proposal, but the court substituted its judgment and stated the number of votes allowed should take account of events all the way in the run up to the meeting, including in this case the Revenue's amended claim for unlawful tax deductions to the managers' trust funds and loans to directors.[115]

This wide discretion of the administrator to manage the company is reflected also in paragraph 3(3)-(4), whereby the administrator may choose between which result (whether saving the company, selling the business, or winding down) "he thinks" subjectively is most appropriate. This places an administrator in an analogous position to a company director.[116] Similarly, further binding duties allow a broad scope for the administrator to exercise good business judgment. An administrator is subject to a duty to perform her functions as 'quickly and efficiently as is reasonably practicable',[117] and must also not act so as to 'unfairly harm' a creditor's interests. In Re Charnley Davies Ltd (No 2) the administrator sold the insolvent company's business at an allegedly undervalued price, which creditors alleged breached his duty to not unfairly harm them.[118] Millett J held the standard of care was not breached, and was the same standard of care as in professional negligence cases of an "ordinary, skilled practitioner". He emphasised that courts should not judge decisions which may turn out sub-optimal with the benefit of hindsight. Here the price was the best possible in the circumstances. Further, in Oldham v Kyrris it was held that creditors may not sue administrators directly in their own capacity, because the duty is owed to the company.[119] So a former employee of a Burger King franchise with an equitable charge for £270,000 for unpaid wages could not sue the administrator directly, outside the terms of the statutory standard, unless responsibility had been directly assumed to him.[120]
Receivership

continue four building contracts

Administration cases
See also: Administration in United Kingdom law, Administration (law), and Enterprise Act 2002

After the Cork Report in 1982, a major new objective for UK insolvency law became creating a "rescue culture" for business, as well as ensuring transparency, accountability and collectivity.[91] The hallmark of the rescue culture is the administration procedure in the Insolvency Act 1986, Schedule B1 as updated by the Enterprise Act 2002. Under Schedule B1, paragraph 3 sets the primary objective of the administrator as "rescuing the company as a going concern", or if not usually selling the business, and if this is not possible realising the property to distribute to creditors. Once an administrator is appointed, she will replace the directors.[92] Under paragraph 40 all creditors are precluded by a statutory moratorium from bringing enforcement procedures to recover their debts. This even includes a bar on secured creditors taking and or selling assets subject to security, unless they get the court's permission.[93] The moratorium is fundamental to keeping the business' assets in tact and giving the company a "breathing space" for the purpose of a restructure. It also extends to a moratorium on the enforcement of criminal proceedings. So in Environmental Agency v Clark[94] the Court of Appeal held that the Environment Agency needed court approval to bring a prosecution against a polluting company, though in the circumstances leave was granted. Guidance for when leave should be given by the court was elaborated in Re Atlantic Computer Systems plc (No 1).[95] In this case, the company in administration had sublet computers that were owned by a set of banks who wanted to repossess them. Nicholls LJ held leave to collect assets should be given if it would not impede the administration's purpose, but strong weight should be given to the interests of the holder of property rights. Here, the banks were given permission because the costs to the banks were disproportionate to the benefit to the company.[96] The moratorium lasts for one year, but can be extended with the administration.[97]

The duties of an administrator in Schedule B1, paragraph 3 are theoretically meant to be exercised for the benefit of the creditors as a whole.[98] However the administrator's duties on paper lie in tension with how, and by who, an administrator is appointed. The holder of a floating charge, which covers substantially all of a company's property (typically the company's bank), has an absolute right to determine who the administrator. Under Schedule B1, paragraph 14, it may appoint the administrator directly, and can do so out of court. The company need not be technically insolvent, so long as the terms of the floating charge allow appointment. The directors or the company may also appoint an administrator out of court,[99] but must give five days' notice to any floating charge holder,[100] who may at any point intervene and install his own preferred candidate.[101] The court can, in law, refuse the floating charge holder's choice of administrator because of the 'particular circumstances of the case', though this will be rare. Typically banks wish to avoid the spotlight and any effect on their reputation, and so they suggest that company directors appoint the administrator from their own list.[102] Other creditors may also apply to court for an administrator to be appointed, although once again, the floating charge holder may intervene.[103] In this case, the court will grant the petition for appointment of an administrator only if, first, the company "is or is likely to become unable to pay its debts" (identical to IA 1986 section 123) and "the administration order is reasonably likely to achieve the purpose of administration."[104] In Re Harris Simons Construction Ltd Hoffmann J held that 'likely to achieve the purpose of administration' meant a test lower than balance of probabilities, and more like whether there was a 'real prospect' of success or a 'good arguable case' for it. So here the company was granted an administration order, which led to its major creditor granting funding to continue four building contracts.[105]
Portsmouth F.C., despite winning the FA Cup in 2008 and reaching the final in 2010, entered administration twice in 2010 and 2011.

Because the essential problem of insolvent companies

As a company nears insolvency, UK law provides four main procedures by which the company could potentially be rescued or wound down and its assets distributed. First, a company voluntary arrangement,[82] allows the directors of a company to reach an agreement with creditors to potentially accept less repayment in the hope of avoiding a more costly administration or liquidation procedure and less in returns overall. However, only for small private companies is a statutory moratorium on debt collection by secured creditors available. Second, and since the Enterprise Act 2002 the preferred insolvency procedure, a company which is insolvent can go under administration. Here a qualified insolvency practitioner will replace the board of directors and is charged with a public duty of rescuing the company in the interests of all creditors, rescuing the business through a sale, getting a better result for creditors than immediate liquidation, or if nothing can be done effecting an orderly winding up and distribution of assets. Third, administrative receivership is a procedure available for a fixed list of eight kinds of operation (such as public-private partnerships, utility projects and protected railway companies[83]) where the insolvency practitioner is appointed by the holder of a floating charge that covers a company's whole assets. This stems from common law receivership where the insolvency practitioner's primary duty was owed to the creditor that appointed him. After the Insolvency Act 1986 it was increasingly viewed to be unacceptable that one creditor could manage a company when the interests of her creditor might conflict with those holding unsecured or other debts. Fourth, when none of these procedures is used, the business is wound up and a company's assets are to be broken up and sold off, a liquidator is appointed. All procedures must be overseen by a qualified insolvency practitioner.[84] While liquidation remains the most frequent end for an insolvent company, UK law since the Cork Report has aimed to cultivate a "rescue culture" to save companies that could be viable.
Company voluntary arrangement
See also: Company Voluntary Arrangement and Individual Voluntary Arrangement
In IRC v Wimbledon Football Club Ltd[85] the Court of Appeal held that the objection of the Inland Revenue (then a preferential creditor) would not be an absolute bar to a CVA, after Wimbledon F.C. prevaricated over relocation.

Because the essential problem of insolvent companies is excessive indebtedness, the Insolvency Act 1986 sections 1 to 7 contain a procedure for companies to ask creditors to reduce the debt they are owed, in the hope that the company may survive. For instance, directors might propose that each creditor accepts 80 per cent of the money owed to each, and to spread repayments out over five years, in return for a commitment to restructure the business' affairs under a new marketing strategy. Under chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code this kind of debt restructuring is usual, and the so-called "cram down" procedure allows a court to approve a plan over the wishes of creditors if they will receive a value equivalent to what they are owed.[86] However, under UK law, the procedure remains predominantly voluntary, except for small companies. A company's directors may instigate a voluntary arrangement with creditors, or if already appointed, an administrator or liquidator can also propose it.[87] Importantly, secured and preferential creditors' entitlements cannot be reduced without their consent.[88] The procedure takes place under the supervision of an insolvency practitioner, to whom the directors will submit a report on the company's finances and a proposal for reducing the debt.

legal resources to do the same.

Aside from a contract that creates a security interest to back repayment of a debt, creditors to a company, and particularly trade creditors may deploy two main equivalents security. The effect is to produce proprietary rights which place them ahead of the general body of creditors. First, a trade creditor who sells goods to a company (which may go into insolvency) can contract for a retention of title clause. This means that even though the seller of goods may have passed possession to a buyer, until the price of sale is paid, the seller has never passed property. The company and creditor agree that title to the property is retained by the buyer until the date of payment. In the leading case, Aluminium Industrie Vaassen BV v Romalpa Aluminium Ltd[77] a Dutch company making aluminium foil stipulated in its contract with Romalpa Aluminium Ltd that when it supplied the foil, ownership would only passed once the price had been paid, and that any products made by Romalpa would be held by them as bailees. When Romalpa went insolvent, another creditor claimed that its floating charge covered the foil and products. The Court of Appeal held, however, that property in the foil had never become part of Romalpa's estate, and so could not be covered by the charge. Furthermore, the clause was not void for want to registration because only assets belonging to the company and then charged needed to be registered. In later cases, the courts have held that if property is mixed during a manufacturing process so that it is no longer identifiable,[78] or if it is sold onto a buyer,[79] then the retention of title clause ceases to have effect. If the property is something that can be mixed (such as oil) and the clause prohibits this, then the seller may retain a percentage share of the mixture as a tenant in common. But if the clause purports to retain title over no more than a part of the property, Re Bond Worth Ltd held that the clause must take effect in equity, and so requires registration.[80] The present requirements in the Companies Act 2006 section 860 continue not to explicitly cover retention of title clauses, in contrast to the registration requirements in the US Uniform Commercial Code article 8. This requires that anything with the same effect as a security interest requires registration, and so covers retention of title provision.

A second main equivalent to a security interest is a "Quistclose trust" named after the case Barclays Bank Ltd v Quistclose Investments Ltd.[81] Here a company named Rolls Razor Ltd had promised to pay a dividend to its shareholders, but had financial difficulty. Already in debt to its bank, Barclays, for £484,000 it agreed to take a loan from Quistclose Investments Ltd for £209,719. This money was deposited in a separate Barclays account, for the purpose of being paid out to shareholders. Unfortunately, Rolls Razor Ltd entered insolvency before the payment was made. Barclays claimed it had a right to set off the Quistclose money against the debts that were due to it, while Quistclose contended the money belonged entirely to it, and could not be used for the satisfaction of other creditors. The House of Lords unanimously held that a trust had been created in favour of Quistclose, and if the purpose of the payment (i.e. to pay the shareholders) failed, then the money would revert to Quistclose's ownership. While Quistclose trust cases are rare, and their theoretical basis has remained controversial (particularly because the trust is for a purpose and so sits uncomfortably with the rule against perpetuities), trusts have also been acknowledged to exist when a company keeps payments by consumers in a separate fund. In Re Kayford Ltd a mail order business, fearing bankruptcy and not wanting pre-payments by its customers to be taken by other creditors, acted on its solicitors' advice and placed their money in a separate bank account. Megarry J held this effectively ensured other creditors would not have access to this cash. Since the Insolvency Act 1986 reforms, it is probable that section 239, which prohibits transactions that desire to give a preference to one creditor over others, would be argued to avoid such an arrangement (if ever a company does in fact seek to prefer its customers in this way). The position, then, would be that while banks and trade creditors may easily protect themselves, consumers, employees and others in a weaker bargaining position have few legal resources to do the same.
Procedures
See also: Chapter 11, Title 11, United States Code
After declining sales in the 2007-2008 financial crisis the Woolworths Group was put under administration. Neither the company nor the business were saved, and the assets were liquidated, culminating in a final fire sale.

Equivalents to security

Especially as automatic crystallisation ceased to make floating charges an effective form of priority, the next step by businesses was to contract for fixed charges over every available specific asset, and then take a floating charge over the remainder. It attempted to do this as well over book debts that a company would collect and trade with. In two early cases the courts approved this practice. In Siebe Gorman & Co Ltd v Barclays Bank Ltd[69] it was said to be done with a stipulation that the charge was "fixed" and the requirement that proceeds be paid into an account held with the lending bank. In Re New Bullas Trading Ltd[70] the Court of Appeal said that a charge could purport to be fixed over uncollected debts, but floating over the proceeds that were collected from the bank's designated account. However the courts overturned these decisions in two leading cases. In Re Brumark Investments Ltd[71] the Privy Council advised that a charge in favour of Westpac bank that purported to separate uncollected debts (where a charge was said to be fixed) and the proceeds (where the charge was said to be floating) could not be deemed separable: the distinction made no commercial sense because the only value in uncollected debts are the proceeds, and so the charge would have to be the same over both.[72] In Re Spectrum Plus Ltd,[73] the House of Lords finally decided that because the hallmark of a floating charge is that a company is free to deal with the charged assets in the ordinary course of business, any charge purported to be "fixed" over book debts kept in any account except one which a bank restricts the use of, must be in substance a floating charge. Lord Scott emphasised that this definition "reflects the mischief that the statutory intervention... was intended to meet and should ensure that preferential creditors continue to enjoy the priority that section 175 of the 1986 Act and its statutory predecessors intended them to have."[74] The decision in Re Spectrum Plus Ltd created a new debate. On the one hand, John Armour argued in response that all categories of preferential would be better off abolished, because in his view businesses would merely be able to contract around the law (even after Re Spectrum Plus Ltd) by arranging loan agreements that have the same effect as security but not in a form caught by the law (giving the examples of invoice discounting or factoring).[75] On the other hand, Roy Goode and Riz Mokal have called for the floating charge simply to be abandoned altogether, in the same way as was recommended by the Minority of the Loreburn Report in 1906.[76]
Equivalents to security
Main articles: Title retention clause and Quistclose trust
[show]

Bissell Oxy GEN 2 Multi-Purpose Cleaner For Bissell Spot Bot - 32 Oz.

Bissell Oxy GEN 2 Multi-Purpose Cleaner For Bissell Spot Bot - 32 Oz.

Additional Information: Boosts cleaning performance No mixing of powder and water Permanently removes stains like red wine, cola and fruit juice .

Cheap filter water bottle

N/A

Bissell Oxy Gen 2 cleaning solution fights stains with oxygen with no mixing of powder and water required. This formula permanently removes stains like red wine, cola ,Find best value and selection for your Bissell Carpet Cleaner Shampoo Oxy Gen2 for SpotBot 801 search on eBay. World's leading marketplace.,Buy the Bissell 801 Oxy GEN 2 Multi-Purpose Cleaner For Bissell Spot Bot - 32 Oz. with fast shipping and excellent Customer Service. Rakuten.com,Home; Bissell Oxy GEN 2 Multi-Purpose Cleaner For Bissell Spot Bot - 32 Oz. Bissell Oxy GEN 2 Multi-Purpose Cleaner For Bissell Spot Bot - 32 Oz.,Bissell 801 Oxy GEN 2 Multi-Purpose Cleaner For Bissell Spot Bot - 32 Oz.,Find, Compare, Read Reviews & Buy Bissell 801 Oxy GEN 2 Multi-Purpose Cleaner For Bissell Spot Bot - 32 Oz. Online @ Yahoo Shopping Want to see your products in ,Oxy- Gen 2 Booster 32 Oz "Bissell" Oxy-Gen 2 Booster. 32 oz. For use in Bissell Little Green Spot Bot-SKU 1239607 (mfg no. 1200) For use with all deep cleaning machines,Bissell 801 Oxy GEN 2 Multi-Purpose Cleaner For Bissell Spot Bot - 32 Oz. Bissell 801 Oxy GEN 2 Multi-Purpose Cleaner For Bissell Spot Bot - 32 Oz.,Bissell Oxy GEN 2 Multi-Purpose Cleaner For Bissell Spot Bot - 32 Oz. - 801 - 7 Sellers Found - $5.99 - - Write Product Reviews at NexTag,Bissell Oxy GEN 2 Multi-Purpose Cleaner For Bissell Spot Bot - 32 Oz. - 801 - 7 Sellers Found - Lowest Price: $5.99

Bissell Oxy GEN 2 Multi-Purpose Cleaner For Bissell Spot Bot - 32 ...
Bissell Oxy GEN 2 Multi-Purpose Cleaner For Bissell Spot Bot - 32 Oz. - 801 - 7 Sellers Found - Lowest Price: $5.99

Bissell Oxy GEN 2 Multi-Purpose Cleaner For Bissell Spot Bot - 32 ...
Bissell Oxy GEN 2 Multi-Purpose Cleaner For Bissell Spot Bot - 32 Oz. - 801 - 7 Sellers Found - $5.99 - - Write Product Reviews at NexTag

Bissell 801 Oxy GEN 2 Multi-Purpose Cleaner For Bissell Spot Bot ...
Bissell 801 Oxy GEN 2 Multi-Purpose Cleaner For Bissell Spot Bot - 32 Oz. Bissell 801 Oxy GEN 2 Multi-Purpose Cleaner For Bissell Spot Bot - 32 Oz.

Buy "Bissell" Oxy-Gen 2 Booster at BuyHardwareSupplies.com
Oxy- Gen 2 Booster 32 Oz "Bissell" Oxy-Gen 2 Booster. 32 oz. For use in Bissell Little Green Spot Bot-SKU 1239607 (mfg no. 1200) For use with all deep cleaning machines

Yahoo! Shopping - Bissell 801 Oxy GEN 2 Multi-Purpose Cleaner For ...
Find, Compare, Read Reviews & Buy Bissell 801 Oxy GEN 2 Multi-Purpose Cleaner For Bissell Spot Bot - 32 Oz. Online @ Yahoo Shopping Want to see your products in

Bissell 801 Oxy GEN 2 Multi-Purpose Cleaner For Bissell Spot Bot ...
Bissell 801 Oxy GEN 2 Multi-Purpose Cleaner For Bissell Spot Bot - 32 Oz.

Bissell Oxy GEN 2 Multi-Purpose Cleaner For Bissell Spot Bot - 32 ...
Home; Bissell Oxy GEN 2 Multi-Purpose Cleaner For Bissell Spot Bot - 32 Oz. Bissell Oxy GEN 2 Multi-Purpose Cleaner For Bissell Spot Bot - 32 Oz.

Rakuten.com - Bissell 801 Oxy GEN 2 Multi-Purpose Cleaner For ...
Buy the Bissell 801 Oxy GEN 2 Multi-Purpose Cleaner For Bissell Spot Bot - 32 Oz. with fast shipping and excellent Customer Service. Rakuten.com

Bissell Carpet Cleaner Shampoo Oxy Gen2 for SpotBot 801 | eBay
Find best value and selection for your Bissell Carpet Cleaner Shampoo Oxy Gen2 for SpotBot 801 search on eBay. World's leading marketplace.

Amazon.com - BISSELL OXYgen Boost Stain Remover, Portable Machine ...
Bissell Oxy Gen 2 cleaning solution fights stains with oxygen with no mixing of powder and water required. This formula permanently removes stains like red wine, cola

PondCare Melafix Antibacterial Remedy 16 oz.

PondCare Melafix Antibacterial Remedy 16 oz.

Pond Care Melafix is an antibacterial remedy for the treatment of koi and goldfish diseases including eye cloud, mouth fungus and fin & tail rot.

Low Cost filter water bottle

• Accessory Type : Filters

PondCare Melafix Antibacterial Fish Remedy, 16-Ounce. August 11, 2013 - Comment. 16 oz. bottle; Comments. skarp says: August 11, 2013 at 11:40 am.,MELAFIX 16-OZ This antibacterial remedy is for the treatment of koi and gold fish diseases. Treats ulcers and open wounds. It rapidly repairs damage fins, fin and ,Melafix - 73 results like PondCare® MelaFix Antibacterial Remedy 16 oz, Treats 4,800 Gallons, MELAFIX from Pond Care - 64oz Bottle, Melafix Pond 237 ml, PondCare ,Shop Low Prices on: Pondcare 176B 16 Oz MelaFix Pond Antibacterial & Cleaner : Patio & Outdoor Decor,Find helpful customer reviews and review ratings for PondCare Melafix Antibacterial Fish Remedy, 16-Ounce at Amazon.com. Read honest and unbiased product reviews from ,PondCare Melafix - 16 fl oz Antibacterial remedy for the treatment of koi and goldfish diseases including eye cloud, mouth fungus and fin & tail rot. All-natural ,PondCare Melafix - 16 fl oz Antibacterial remedy for the treatment of koi and goldfish diseases including eye cloud, mouth fungus and fin & tail rot. All-natural ,PondCare Melafix Antibacterial Remedy 16 oz. - Pond Care Melafix is an antibacterial remedy for the treatment of koi and goldfish diseases including eye cloud, mouth ,Find best value and selection for your Pondcare 176B 16 Oz MelaFix Pond Antibacterial Cleaner search on eBay. World's leading marketplace.,Amazon.com: PondCare Melafix Antibacterial Fish Remedy, 16-Ounce: Pet Supplies 16 oz. bottle; 44 new from $7.98. Howl-o-ween in Pet Supplies

Amazon.com: PondCare Melafix Antibacterial Fish Remedy, 16-Ounce ...
Amazon.com: PondCare Melafix Antibacterial Fish Remedy, 16-Ounce: Pet Supplies 16 oz. bottle; 44 new from $7.98. Howl-o-ween in Pet Supplies

Pondcare 176B 16 Oz MelaFix Pond Antibacterial Cleaner | eBay
Find best value and selection for your Pondcare 176B 16 Oz MelaFix Pond Antibacterial Cleaner search on eBay. World's leading marketplace.

PondCare Melafix Antibacterial Remedy 16 oz. - PetGuys.com
PondCare Melafix Antibacterial Remedy 16 oz. - Pond Care Melafix is an antibacterial remedy for the treatment of koi and goldfish diseases including eye cloud, mouth

PondCare Melafix - 16 fl oz - Fish, Reptiles, Dog, Cat, Bird ...
PondCare Melafix - 16 fl oz Antibacterial remedy for the treatment of koi and goldfish diseases including eye cloud, mouth fungus and fin & tail rot. All-natural

PondCare Melafix - 16 fl oz
PondCare Melafix - 16 fl oz Antibacterial remedy for the treatment of koi and goldfish diseases including eye cloud, mouth fungus and fin & tail rot. All-natural

Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: PondCare Melafix Antibacterial Fish ...
Find helpful customer reviews and review ratings for PondCare Melafix Antibacterial Fish Remedy, 16-Ounce at Amazon.com. Read honest and unbiased product reviews from

Pondcare 176B 16 Oz MelaFix Pond Antibacterial & Cleaner: Patio ...
Shop Low Prices on: Pondcare 176B 16 Oz MelaFix Pond Antibacterial & Cleaner : Patio & Outdoor Decor

Melafix - Compare Prices, Reviews and Buy at Nextag
Melafix - 73 results like PondCare® MelaFix Antibacterial Remedy 16 oz, Treats 4,800 Gallons, MELAFIX from Pond Care - 64oz Bottle, Melafix Pond 237 ml, PondCare

PondCare Melafix 16-oz. - Garden Ponds
MELAFIX 16-OZ This antibacterial remedy is for the treatment of koi and gold fish diseases. Treats ulcers and open wounds. It rapidly repairs damage fins, fin and

PondCare Melafix Antibacterial Fish Remedy, 16-Ounce ...
PondCare Melafix Antibacterial Fish Remedy, 16-Ounce. August 11, 2013 - Comment. 16 oz. bottle; Comments. skarp says: August 11, 2013 at 11:40 am.