Can a CVA bind a landlord in respect of future rents? Is the landlord a creditor in respect of future rent? What about the right to forfeit; can a CVA modify that right? Is compromising rent under a CVA automatically unfair to landlords when other trade creditors are paid in full?

These were some of the points considered by the Court in determining whether the Debenhams’ CVA (which had been challenged by landlords) should fail.

One point of particular interest is whether reducing rents below market value in a CVA is automatically unfair to landlords?

Today the Government published draft provisions for inclusion in the Finance Bill which will amend the Insolvency Act 1986 and grant HMRC preferential status on insolvency. A status that was removed in 2003 but which will be re-instated (in part) from 6 April 2020.

Despite huge concern from the lending market, voiced in responses to the Government’s consultation on this measure, the only material change we can see is confirmation that preferential status will not apply to insolvency proceedings commenced before 6 April 2020.

La Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo 710/2019, de 8 de marzo, resuelve en casación, por primera vez, creo, el extremo relativo a la oponibilidad al concurso de una condición resolutoria acompañada de una cláusula penal de retención de la totalidad del precio ya pagado por el comprador inmobiliario insolvente. Según la Sala, la condición resolutoria (inmobiliaria) es plenamente oponible al concurso; en este caso se hallaba inscrita, pero no parece que esta condición haya sido relevante para su efectividad.

Interesante Resolución de la Dirección General de los Registros y del Notariado de 5 junio 2019. En el origen, se trata de la inscripción de una venta directa de bien hipotecado, hecha en liquidación concursal, por un valor inferior al de tasación, pero sin contar con el consentimiento del acreedor hipotecario, como impone el artículo 155.4 de la Ley Concursal (LCon). Según la administración concursal, este consentimiento no es preciso, pues en virtud del artículo 97 ha desaparecido el crédito hipotecario por no estar incluido en la lista ni haber sido ésta objeto de impugnación.

The proposal to reinstate Crown preference in insolvency has met resistance from all angles; the insolvency profession, turnaround experts, accountants, lawyers and funders. But despite HMRC’s bold statement in its consultation paper that the re-introduction of Crown preference will have little impact on funders, it is clear following a discussion with lenders that it may well have a far wider impact on existing and new business, business rescue and the economy in general than HMRC believes.

Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo 227/2019, de 11 abril. Después de la declaración de concurso de la prestataria, la acreedora hipotecaria (una Caja Rural) comunicó un crédito de 117.174,82 euros, que se correspondía a 114.839,44 euros de principal, 1.089,29 euros de intereses remuneratorios y 127,16 euros de intereses de demora. El crédito es clasificado como crédito con privilegio especial. Abierta la liquidación, se procedió a la subasta de las dos fincas sobre las que se había constituido la hipoteca en garantía del reseñado crédito. La subasta se celebró el 11 de marzo de 2013.

Se comenta y se refuta una reciente sentencia del Tribunal Supremo que exige que estos créditos por intereses estén en el concurso especialmente comunicados, y que de otra forma no podrían ser pagados con el producto de ejecución.

1. Los hechos

Crown prerogative dates back to the Magna Carta entitling the monarch to absolute priority for revenue related debt. Come 6 April 2020 will we really be heading back to feudal times and 1215?

The proposal to reinstate Crown preference was announced as part of the Autumn Budget last year and came as a surprise to many. The expected consultation paper published by HMRC this week seeks the views of individuals, shareholders, directors, lenders, companies and insolvency practitioners on the proposal to reinstate Crown preference in part.

There has always been a tension between protecting the interests of defined benefit pension schemes and insolvency given on the one hand The Pensions Regulator (TPR) seeks to protect the interests of pension scheme members and the Pension Protection Fund and on the other, the insolvency regime seeks to protect the interests of creditors as a whole.

An unresolved question - and one that generates disparate opinions - is addressed in this paper concerning whether and how conditional or litigating creditors should be acknowledged in terms of quorum and voting under the Fourth Additional Provision of the Insolvency Act.