The UK’s Insolvency Act 1986 sets out in s.123 various tests to determine whether a company should be deemed unable to pay its debts. The relevance of these tests to distressed companies is obvious: deciding as they do when it is appropriate to seek an administration order or present a winding up petition. They also help determine directors’ duties, antecedent transactions and issues such as wrongful and fraudulent trading.

In Morning Mist Holdings Limited v. Krys (In re Fairfield Sentry Limited), Case No. 11-4376, 2013 WL 1593348 (2d Cir.

In a corporate system based in part on the separation of ownership and control, the relationship between principals and agents is riddled with agency problems: Among them are potential conflicts of interest where agents may abuse their fiduciary position for their own benefit as opposed to the benefit of the principals to whom they are obligated. Delineating the agents' fiduciary duties is thus a central focus of corporate law, and the dereliction of those duties often comes under scrutiny in the bankruptcy context.

The UK Supreme Court has handed down an important judgment in the conjoined cases of Rubin and another v Eurofinance SA and others and New Cap Reinsurance Corporation (in Liquidation) and another v AE Grant and others [2012] UKSC 46, which provides vital clarification on the effect of foreign insolvency judgments on the UK courts. The judgment was handed down yesterday.

Background & Court of Appeal

In the present fi nancial climate, customers are increasingly asking for business critical software or other assets to be transferred to the customer should the supplier become insolvent, for the legitimate reason that the customer needs security of supply. Two recent Court of Appeal cases remind us that customers who outsource to and contract with potentially vulnerable service providers need to take account of the “anti-deprivation principle” when doing this.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in In re Philadelphia Newspapers LLC,1 has ruled that secured creditors do not have a right, as a matter of law, to credit bid their claims when their collateral is sold under a plan of reorganization. The Third Circuit held that secured creditors may be barred from credit bidding where a debtor's reorganization plan provides secured creditors with the "indubitable equivalent" of their secured interest in the assets. The court's ruling follows a similar ruling last year by the U.S.

• Decision will be welcomed by insurers

The Scottish Appeal Court has allowed the appeal by Scottish Lion Insurance against the judgment of Lord Glennie on whether it would ever be fair for a court to sanction a solvent scheme in the face of creditor opposition, says City law firm Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP (RPC).

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.

In the last edition of Real Estate Update, we considered the position of a landlord wishing to keep the lease of premises to a company in administration ongoing and in what circumstances he will receive the full rent (ie 100 pence in the pound). If, however, the tenant is in administration and the landlord would like to bring the lease to an end, he would only be entitled to forfeit the lease if the administrator consents or the court grants an order giving him permission to do so.1

1. Can I lock the tenant out of the property until they pay?

No. If a tenant has been placed in administration then there will be a moratorium in place. This gives a company some breathing space. Rights against the company, such as forfeiture or conducting legal proceedings, can only be pursued with either the consent of the administrator or a court order. As noted last week, changing the locks is likely to forfeit the lease. Unless you intend to forfeit and obtain the necessary permission to do so, you should not change the locks.