In a recent High Court decision, the court found that interim dividend payments made to a director were salary payments and not unlawful dividends/transactions at undervalue. This decision could make it more difficult for liquidators to recover sums from directors who do not have particular legal or accounting expertise.
Background
In the recent English case of Pick v Chief Land Registrar [2011] EWHC 206(Ch), the High Court held that a buyer was entitled to be registered at the Land Registry as the registered proprietor of a property sold by a bankrupt. This was the case, even though the buyer allowed the priority period in which to effect registration to lapse, and the entry of a bankruptcy restriction was made on the title after the date of the transfer, but before the application for registration.
Administrators will note with concern the decision of the East London Employment Tribunal in Spencer v Lehman Brothers (in administration) and Others, which suggests that administrators can be held to be personally liable for the discrimination of employees of the business in administration.
Introduction
In the current economic climate, landlords are having to deal more frequently with tenants who are in administration. Where the administrators of the tenant are using the property for the purposes of the administration, the moratorium on forfeiture and irritancy proceedings that applies in administrations means that the landlords are unlikely to be able to recover the property in order to relet it.
Philip Bell v Philip Long, Andrew Thomson, PKF and Weatherall Green & Smith (North) Limited [2008] EWHC 1273 (Ch)
Background
The receiver's duty to exercise care in disposing of the company's assets and to ensure he obtains the best price reasonably obtainable at the time of sale was considered recently in the English case of Bell v Long & Others.
In an important decision for commercial property landlords, the High Court in Prudential Assurance Co Ltd and Others v PRG Powerhouse Limited and Others has ruled that a CVA (defined below) cannot operate so as to prevent landlords from enforcing a parent company guarantee. The Court's decision however was reached on the basis that to determine otherwise would have been "unfairly prejudicial" to the landlords.