The collapse of UK retailer British Home Stores ("BHS") in 2016 remains one of the most high-profile corporate insolvencies of recent times. It went from being a household name across the UK, with over 11,000 employees, to having reported debts of £1.3 billion, including a pension deficit of nearly £600 million. The group's demise saw the closure of some 164 stores nationwide and significant job losses.

In the recent case of Re LYHFL Limited [2023] EWHC 2585 (Ch), the High Court has considered the proper interpretation of paragraph 12(1)(b), Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986, by which directors can apply to court for an order putting the company into administration.

Drawing on previous authorities concerning this and similar provisions, the Court concluded that an individual director has no power to make such an application without the approval of the majority of the company's directors and a valid board resolution.

Facts

It’s not the first occasion that a major serviced office provider has landed in a corporate restructuring but it may be the most high-profile. The current evolving situation follows on from such previous fireworks as the failed IPO, a corporate reorganisation that swapped a US headco “inc.“ for an “LLC” (prompting litigation at the end of the last decade), and continuing market uncertainty as to the robustness of the brand.

On the eve of trial, the Insolvency Service (IS), acting on behalf of the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, has discontinued disqualification proceedings brought in January 2021 against five former non-executive directors (NEDs) of Carillion plc. The trial, which had been listed for around 13 weeks (and originally as long as 6 months) had been due to start on Monday 16 October 2023.

In a recent case, the High Court has had one of its first opportunities to consider BTI v Sequana [2022] UKSC 25 (see our previous update here), in which the Supreme Court gave important guidance on the existence and scope of the duty of company directors to have regard to the interests of creditors (the so-called “creditor duty”, which arises in an insolvency scenario).

The judgement raises important questions for directors faced with substantial liabilities

Although not directly concerned with directors' liabilities, the recent Supreme Court judgment in Stanford International Bank Ltd v HSBC Bank PLC provides further clarity on the circumstances in which a distressed or insolvent company may seek to make claims against its directors.

INTRODUCTION

The key aspects affecting directors' liabilities presented in the Supreme Court ruling are that:

In what is likely to be the most significant change to the UK restructuring and insolvency market since the Enterprise Act 2002, the Court has yesterday¹ paved the way for restructuring plans under Part 26A to the Companies Act 2006 ("RPs") to be used to compromise the rights of landlords, financial creditors and other unsecured creditors provided the company shows that those creditors are "out of the money". There may even be no need to ask those compromised creditors to vote on the RP.

A case study of what to look out for when a tenant or its guarantor is looking like it is heading for financial difficulties

As a prudent and prepared landlord, it's always sensible to assess what potential remedies you might have should a tenant (or its guarantor) become insolvent or enter into some form of insolvency procedure. In this bulletin, we look at a short hypothetical case study and identify some of the key issues that landlords will need to assess in such circumstances.

1. The case study scenario

The Court of Appeal has today handed down judgment in the hugely anticipated litigation involving the Game group of companies, deciding that, where a company goes into administration and continues to trade from property, rent will be payable on a daily basis for the period during which the company actually occupies the premises.