Where a landlord forfeits its lease, subject to any available relief or exemption, the landlord is liable to business rates in respect of the premises.

Empty premises business rates exemption will provide time-limited relief to a landlord who has re-entered premises. However, a landlord should be cautious of exercising its right to forfeit a lease in cases where it does not have another tenant "waiting in the wings".

The ratepayer

Business rates are paid by occupiers and, in certain circumstances, owners of premises.

In the current recession landlords are among the fi rst to lose out when a company goes into insolvency, be it a pre-pack sale or a conventional administration process. It is important, therefore, for landlords to know what rights they retain when confronted with the administration of their tenant in order to ensure the full rent is paid - if they are still entitled to it - or, at the very least, to increase their bargaining position. In this article, we look at the circumstances where an administrator is obliged to pay the landlord’s rent in full.

The property industry has seen a dramatic decline in capital values over the last two years with peak to trough falls of approximately 44 per cent compared to a peak to trough decline of approximately 27 per cent during the recession of the early 1990s. This, together with the effect of the challenging economic climate, has led to a number of high profile insolvencies of property owners, developers and occupiers. Given the uncertain economic outlook, it is likely that these trends will continue.

Background

Article 4.1 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on Insolvency Proceedings (the "Regulation") states: "Save as otherwise provided in this Regulation, the law applicable to insolvency proceedings and their effects shall be that of the Member State within the territory of which such proceedings are opened..."

Article 4.2 of the Regulation sets out a non-exhaustive list of the matters which the law of the state of the opening of insolvency proceedings is to determine, including:

Background

Article 4.1 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on Insolvency Proceedings (the "Regulation") states: "Save as otherwise provided in this Regulation, the law applicable to insolvency proceedings and their effects shall be that of the Member State within the territory of which such proceedings are opened..."

Article 4.2 of the Regulation sets out a non-exhaustive list of the matters which the law of the state of the opening of insolvency proceedings is to determine, including:

The Joint Administrators (the “Administrators”) of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (“LBIE”) announced on Oct. 5, 2009, that they are developing a contractual (i.e., non-judicial) alternative to their proposed Scheme of Arrangement, which is the subject of an appeal following a decision by the High Court in London that it lacks jurisdiction to implement the scheme.

The Prior Proposed Scheme of Arrangement

• Consultation ends September 7 2009
• Likely to re-ignite controversy over 'pre-pack' administrations

New proposals by the Government to improve access to rescue finance for small companies would allow larger or complex businesses to make private applications to the courts for an "administration-type" regime without creditors necessarily knowing. Proposals in the same consultation on lending to insolvent companies could drive up the cost of borrowing, says Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP (RPC), the City law firm.

The Office of Public Sector Information (OPSI) has published The Insolvency (Scotland) Amendment (No. 2) Rules 2009. These Rules amend the Insolvency (Scotland) Rules 1986 (S.I. 1986/1915). No Regulatory Impact Assessment has been prepared in relation to these Rules as they are not expected to impose any significant burdens on business.

View The Insolvency (Scotland) Amendment (No. 2) Rules 2009, 1 September 2009  

In the case of William Hare Ltd v Shepherd Construction Ltd [2009] EWHC 1603 (TCC) (25 June 2009), the court declined to incorporate amendments made to an Act before the contract was signed which were not specifically referred to in the contract.

The facts

In Butters and ors v BBC Worldwide Ltd and ors, decided on 20 August 2009, the Court held that contractual provisions in a joint venture agreement taken together with termination provisions in a licence of IP rights were void since the effect of those provisions on insolvency was to deprive creditors access to assets and therefore contrary to public policy in the light of insolvency laws.

BUSINESS IMPACT