Summary and implications

Whilst the property market remains challenging, the possibility of landlords entering into administration increases and many redevelopment schemes have been put on hold.

Making a will is regarded by most individuals as a necessary irritant ranking in popularity somewhere below a visit to the dentist or doctor. Following the unprecedented instability in the global financial markets since 2007, “systemic” risk (posed by the potential failure of large or complex cross-border financial institutions) was identified by regulators and legislators as one of the key areas requiring better supervision, in order to prevent a similar crisis in the future.

On the 12 November 2009, the OFT launched a market study into corporate insolvency. The investigation was prompted by concerns raised with the Government and the Insolvency Service, and also following a recent World Bank report which showed that the costs of closing a business in the UK are higher than in other countries.

THE PERENNIAL PROBLEM OF UNPAID DEBTS – YOUR RECOVERY OPTIONS

The Joint Administrators (the “Administrators”) of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (“LBIE”) have issued a notice, dated December 4, 2009 (the “Notice”), pursuant to Rule 2.95(1) of the U.K. Insolvency Rules 1986, announcing their intent to make a distribution (by payment of an interim dividend) to preferential creditors (if any) and unsecured, non-preferential creditors of LBIE. The Notice was authorized on December 2, 2009, by an order of the High Court of Justice (Companies Court) in London (the “U.K. Court Order”).

In Clydesdale Financial Services Ltd and others v Robert Smailes and others [2009] EWHC 3190 (Ch), the principal issues before the Court were whether the third claimant, Focus Insurance Company Ltd (Focus), had a real prospect of success in its claims to be, first, a creditor (under the Insolvency Act 1986) of the fifth defendant, Alexander Samuel LLP (LLP) in respect of unpaid premiums and, second, a "victim" under ss.423-425 of the Insolvency Act 1986 of the sale of LLP's business to Jiva Solicitors LLP (Jiva) effected around the same time as it went into administration.

At the urging of U.S. policyholders, a Scottish court recently rejected a Scottish insurance company’s efforts to close its books and avoid full liability for long-tail claims when the insurance company is solvent and entirely capable of paying claims.

The High Court has ruled in the case of Goldacre (Offices) Limited v Nortel Networks UK Limited (in administration) [2009] that rent for premises that continue to be used for the beneficial outcome of an administration must be paid as an expense of the administration. This decision confirms that the court has no discretion in these circumstances and that it does not matter if only part of the premises are being used. This contrasts with the position where a landlord wishes to take action against a tenant in administration such as bringing forfeiture or injunction proceedings.

Summary and implications

The court has clarified that administrators must pay rent as an expense of the administration when they use property.

The High Court has recently held* that:

The case of Goldacre v Nortel, decided in December, has clarified the circumstances in which an administrator is liable to pay rent under a lease as an expense of an administration. If rent is an expense of the administration, the landlord will almost certainly be paid in full for as long as the administrator uses the property. If it is not such an expense, the landlord will be an unsecured creditor who will be lucky to receive a few pence in the pound.