This week will hopefully see the end of a long running battle between Britain’s biggest landlords and the restructuring profession. On 12 February, the Court of Appeal will start to hear an appeal relating to the administration of Game Station (Jervis v Pillar Denton). It will consider whether the administrators should pay rent for the properties which they occupied during the administration as an administration expense, so ensuring the landlords receive their rent in priority to payments  made to other creditors.

Background

This week the Court of Appeal has heard the long awaited appeal in Jervis and another v Pillar Denton Limited (Game Station) and others, better known as the Game Station case, which (depending on the outcome) may trigger a drastic change to the way in which rent in administration is treated.

This case considered whether Bulmers Transport Limited (“Bulmers”) was under the “supervision of an insolvency practitioner” pursuant to Regulation 8(7) Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (“TUPE”).

Comment

The case provides some helpful clarity on the inter-relationship of Regulation 8(7) TUPE and s388 Insolvency Act 1986, when determining whether a company is under the “supervision of an insolvency practitioner”.

In the recent decision of Topland Portfolio No.1 Limited v Smiths News Trading Limited [2014] EWCA Civ 18, the Court of Appeal has given a timely reminder of the need for landlords to tread carefully when dealing with leases to ensure that a tenant guarantee remains effective.

The case held that a judge was right to strike out a claim brought by a liquidator under sections 238 and 241 of the Insolvency Act 1986, as the transactions alleged to have been made at an undervalue were not transactions entered into by the company.

Comment

The Administrators of a group of companies put their proposals before the creditors who failed to approve the proposals. Indeed, they failed to vote at all. The Administrators applied for the proposals to be approved by the Court. It was held that such approval was not required unless  the proposals were actively opposed by creditors. In the absence of such approval, the judge considered that the administrators have the power to act in their own discretion. The judge also used the case to comment on the standard form of proposals used by most insolvency practitioners.

Comment

It is a fact of life that whatever goes up will normally come back down (but not necessarily vice versa). Nowhere is this more keenly felt than in the world of British football, where those clubs that just about stay in the Premier League reap riches that would be the envy of Plutus, Ancient Greek god of wealth, and those that drop out face a desperate chase for money simply to stay afloat.  

The Government has recently published a discussion paper, ‘Transparency & Trust: Enhancing the transparency of UK company ownership and increasing trust in UK business’, inviting feed-back on a number of proposals concerning the transparency of company ownership and control, enforcement of directors’ duties and compensation of creditors.  Among other things, the Government proposes to:  

Summary