Judge Barber has considered the order of priority of payments in an administration and - more specifically - whether the Lundy Granite principle applies to both the rent payable once a company has gone into administration, and to the “top up” obligation requiring the company to replenish a rent deposit, where a landlord had drawn down on the deposit against unpaid rent (Re London Bridge Entertainment Partners LLP (in administration) [2019] EWHC 2932 (CH)).

The Rules

Background

The aim of the compensation order regime, to make directors financially account for the consequences of their unfit conduct, applies to directors’ conduct after 1 October 2015 and gives the Secretary of State (“SoS”) the power to apply for a compensation order against a director who is either subject to a disqualification order or who has given a disqualification undertaking and the conduct of that person has caused loss to one or more creditors of the insolvent company.

A recent TCC decision has provided further guidance on a liquidator’s options when seeking payments owed to insolvent companies through adjudication and the interplay with the Insolvency Rules. The decision establishes an exception to the general principle that such adjudication proceedings will not be enforced (and are liable to be injuncted) where the responding party has a cross-claim.

On October 22, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a ruling in Crocker v. Navient Solutions that could have mixed consequences for student loan borrowers and creditors alike. The Court determined that a bankruptcy court lacks the authority to enforce discharge injunctions issued by bankruptcy courts in other districts.

In Kinnick v. Med-1 Solutions, LLC, the District Court for the Southern District of Indiana found that sending a collection letter to a bankruptcy debtor provided that debtor with standing to file a claim based on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act against the creditor outside of the bankruptcy case.

On October 7, California Governor Gavin Newsome signed SB 616 into law. This new law, which goes into effect on September 1, 2020, includes changes to California law regarding garnishments.

In a non-precedential ruling, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld a district court decision to grant summary judgment in favor of a defendant that was sued for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau published its quarterly consumer credit trends report on September 25. In the Report, the CFPB gave an in-depth look at bankruptcy trends and the impact of filing for the period 2001-2018, which includes the enactment of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (“BAPCPA”) and the Great Recession.

Following an expedited trial, the High Court has rejected an application brought by a group of landlords known as the Combined Property Control Group (“CPC”) to challenge the company voluntary arrangement (“CVA”) proposed by Debenhams Retail Limited (“Debenhams”).

CPC challenged the CVA on five grounds. The judge in the case, Mr Justice Norris, held that four of the five grounds failed and directed certain “Forfeiture Restraint Provisions” be removed from the CVA as a result of the fifth.

The CVA challenge

The landlords’ claim against the Debenhams CVA was put forward on five grounds:

1. Future rent is not a “debt” and so the landlords are not creditors, such that the CVA cannot bind them

REJECTED: The definition of “debt” is broad enough to include pecuniary contingent liabilities, such as future rent.

2. A CVA cannot operate to reduce rent payable under leases: it is automatically unfairly prejudicial