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.

• 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 draft Legislative Reform (Insolvency) (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order 2009 has now been published detailing the proposed changes to the Insolvency Act 1986. The aim of the changes is to reduce costs and the administrative burden on users of the legislation and subsequently benefi t the creditors of insolvent companies and individuals through more fl exible procedures and increased dividends.  

In the current climate, both landlords and tenants could be forgiven for wondering what would happen if the other became a victim of the recession. For both parties, a rent deposit deed can provide some comfort. Such a deed would mean the landlord has immediate access to cold hard cash if the tenant fails to pay the rent, while a struggling tenant may get valuable breathing space before the landlord turns to other remedies.  

As widely expected, GM and all of its domestic subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on June 1, 2009. Besides General Motors Corporation, the other three associated debtors are: Chevrolet-Saturn of Harlem, Inc., Saturn, LLC and Saturn Distribution Corporation. Please note that GMAC is not included in these bankruptcy filings.

Judge Arthur J. Gonzalez presided over hearings May 20, 2009, in this mega bankruptcy case. There were 21 matters on the agenda, as well as an emergency motion, that were heard or adjourned to a later date, in approximately two and a half hours of hearings (click here for a link to the audio file provided by the Clerk of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York; it may take a moment to load before playing).

Our first update1 discussed various initial proceedings in the Chrysler bankruptcy cases. This update provides certain information on the Order Approving Bidding Procedures for the Sale of Substantially all of the Debtors’ Assets, which was entered by the court on May 7, 2009, and the Interim Order Approving a DIP Credit Facility and Authorizing the Debtors to Obtain Post-Petition Financing, which was entered by the court on May 4, 2009. The final DIP Financing and Sale hearings are scheduled for May 20, 2009, and May 27, 2009, respectively.

As widely reported, on April 30, 2009, (the Petition Date), Chrysler LLC and its 24 domestic and indirect subsidiaries (the Debtors) filed voluntary petitions under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the Court).

In Thabalt v Chait (Nov. 2008), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld an award of damages against PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP (PWC) based on PWC’s alleged negligent audit of the Ambassador Insurance Company. Plaintiff, the Vermont Insurance

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on May 30, 2008, issued a memorandum opinion in which it refused to dismiss claims of breach of fiduciary duty against directors and officers of a company who approved the sale of the company’s assets on the eve of its filing for bankruptcy protection. In issuing its opinion inIn re Bridgeport Holdings Inc., the court provided some guidelines for directors and officers, particularly during challenging economic times.