Background

The aim of the compensation order regime, to make directors financially account for the consequences of their unfit conduct, applies to directors’ conduct after 1 October 2015 and gives the Secretary of State (“SoS”) the power to apply for a compensation order against a director who is either subject to a disqualification order or who has given a disqualification undertaking and the conduct of that person has caused loss to one or more creditors of the insolvent company.

Following an expedited trial, the High Court has rejected an application brought by a group of landlords known as the Combined Property Control Group (“CPC”) to challenge the company voluntary arrangement (“CVA”) proposed by Debenhams Retail Limited (“Debenhams”).

CPC challenged the CVA on five grounds. The judge in the case, Mr Justice Norris, held that four of the five grounds failed and directed certain “Forfeiture Restraint Provisions” be removed from the CVA as a result of the fifth.

The CVA challenge

The landlords’ claim against the Debenhams CVA was put forward on five grounds:

1. Future rent is not a “debt” and so the landlords are not creditors, such that the CVA cannot bind them

REJECTED: The definition of “debt” is broad enough to include pecuniary contingent liabilities, such as future rent.

2. A CVA cannot operate to reduce rent payable under leases: it is automatically unfairly prejudicial

When a tenant goes into liquidation and its liquidator surrenders the lease what effect does this have on any obligations to remove any alterations that the tenant has made during the term and generally reinstate?  The high court has recently decided that the terms of a surrender that released both parties from rights arising “on or after, but not before, the date of this surrender” were sufficient to release the tenant from its obligations to reinstate the premises because these obligations were future obligations.

The Pensions Regulator has today issued a Statement on its power to issue financial support directions (“FSDs”) against companies after an insolvency event has occurred. The Statement follows longstanding concerns of insolvency practitioners, which have arisen from ongoing court proceedings brought by the Lehman Brothers and Nortel administrators.

Background

At this time of year, sports pages are normally rife with transfer speculation before the new domestic seasons begin across the UK. This summer is different however, due to increased interest in Glasgow Rangers and the effect of “TUPE transfers” of players to the Rangers Newco.

In our Law-Now of 4 April 2012 (click here for link), we reported on the decision of the court in the case of Leisure (Norwich) II Limited v Luminar Lava Ignite Limited (in administration).  The detailed judgment has now been released, setting out the rationale for the decision and summarising the position on rents in administration generally.

The legal position on this issue is now:

Landlords have lost round two in the ongoing battle as to whether rent should be paid as an expense of the administration. The decision of the Court last week in the X-Leisure / Luminar case was in favour of administrators.

Following the Goldacre case, if an administrator is using the property for the purposes of the administration on the quarter day then the full quarter’s rent is payable as an expense of the administration.  What was not clear, was whether if the administrator was appointed just after the quarter day rent was payable as an expense. 

On 29 November 2011, the Court of Appeal ruled for the dismissal of appeals lodged by Digital Satellite Warranty Cover Limited (DSWC) and Bernard Freeman and Michael Sullivan, trading as Satellite Services (SS), in respect of winding-up orders previously secured by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) against these companies.

The Court of Appeal has held in the recent case of Spaceright Europe Ltd v Baillavoine and another (2011) that a dismissal can be for “a reason connected with the transfer” under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (“TUPE”) even if there is no particular transfer or transferee in existence or contemplation at the time of the dismissal. In the case Mr Baillavoine, the Chief Executive of Ultralon Holdings Ltd (“Ultralon”), was dismissed on the day Ultralon was placed into administration.