Following the announcement that Crystal Palace Football Club had gone into administration in January 2010, the club's administrator wanted to sell the club as a going concern. Shortly after he signed a sale and purchase agreement with the newly formed Crystal Palace Football Consortium (CPFC) he discovered that the club had severe financial problems and decided to 'mothball' the club during the out of season period, in the hope of selling it in the future. However CPFC then decided to withdraw its offer for the club and on 28 May 2010 the four claimants were made redundant.
On 9 October 2012, a bill proposal was introduced to the Luxembourg Parliament providing for a right to claim back "intangible" and non-fungible movable assets from a bankrupt company.
According to the explanatory memorandum, the bill proposal is intended to allow the recovery of data from a bankrupt provider of distance IT services or cloud computing solutions. Once passed, the law will provide greater certainty as to the consequences of the bankruptcy of a cloud computing provider on the data in its possession.
"Separable" Assets
Whether rent due should be treated as an insolvency expense (paid in preference to unsecured creditors and the insolvency practitioner's fees/expenses) remains controversially topical. With the economic recovery being more of a marathon than a sprint, and more insolvencies anticipated, both landlords and insolvency practitioners (IP) are calling for greater clarity over when rent is an insolvency expense and over what period.
On 13 June 2012 the Financial Institutions (Special Measures) Act (Wet bijzondere maatregelen financiële ondernemingen; "Intervention Act") entered into force with retro-active effect as of 20 January 2012). The Intervention Act includes new powers for the Netherlands Central Bank ("DNB") to procure that a bank or insurer which is experiencing serious financial problems is transferred, in whole or in part, to a third party.
With the number of retail administrations up 15% in the first quarter of 2012 compared to a year ago (according to research by Deloitte), the recent High Court case of Leisure (Norwich) II Limited v Luminar Lava Ignite Limited (in administration) 28 March 2012 will be of particular interest to landlords. They will not be pleased with the decision that unpaid rent which falls due prior to the appointment of an administrator/liquidator amounts to an unsecured claim against the insolvent tenant. It is not to be treated as an expense of the administration/liquidation (and w
USDAW v WW Realisation 1 Limited (in Liquidation)
You probably wouldn't recognise it from the case name but this case results from the closure of the much loved and sorely missed Woolworths.
Employers are obliged to carry out collective consultation with appropriate representatives when proposing to dismiss 20 or more employees from an establishment over a 90-day period: the length of the consultation period is dependent on the number of employees being dismissed.
As this note goes to press, there is a fresh round of tenant insolvencies. Administrators are again presenting proposals to landlords that severely reduce their rights to rent and to control who occupies their premises.
We have advised on many such proposals and secured payment of significant sums due to landlords. Don't just accept terms proposed by administrators before taking advice.