The anti-deprivation principle provides that “there cannot be a valid contract that a man’s property shall remain his until his bankruptcy, and, on the happening of that event, go over to someone else, and be taken away from his creditors”.

A new wrinkle in the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy cases emerged recently when a U.S. bankruptcy judge issued an opinion directly at odds with the decisions previously rendered by certain English courts regarding priority of payment provisions (the “Priority Provisions”) with respect to collateral under the “Dante Program.”

The Dante Program

• Decision will be welcomed by insurers

The Scottish Appeal Court has allowed the appeal by Scottish Lion Insurance against the judgment of Lord Glennie on whether it would ever be fair for a court to sanction a solvent scheme in the face of creditor opposition, says City law firm Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP (RPC).

In September 2009 we reported on the first instance decision in Butters and ors v BBC Worldwide Ltd and ors, accessible here in which the Court held that contractual provisions in a joint venture agreement taken together with termination provisions in a licence of IP rights were void since the effect of those provisions on insolvency was to deprive creditors' access to assets and therefore contrary

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.

Nortel Networks UK Limited (the company) was a tenant under two leases. The company went into administration. The administrators occupied a small proportion of each of the premises to enable them to carry out the administration. Under the terms of both leases rent was payable quarterly in advance.

The landlord applied to the court for an order directing the administrators to pay the rent as an expense of the administration.

The High Court has ruled in the case of Goldacre (Offices) Limited v Nortel Networks UK Limited (in administration) [2009] that rent for premises that continue to be used for the beneficial outcome of an administration must be paid as an expense of the administration. This decision confirms that the court has no discretion in these circumstances and that it does not matter if only part of the premises are being used. This contrasts with the position where a landlord wishes to take action against a tenant in administration such as bringing forfeiture or injunction proceedings.

In the last edition of Real Estate Update, we considered the position of a landlord wishing to keep the lease of premises to a company in administration ongoing and in what circumstances he will receive the full rent (ie 100 pence in the pound). If, however, the tenant is in administration and the landlord would like to bring the lease to an end, he would only be entitled to forfeit the lease if the administrator consents or the court grants an order giving him permission to do so.1

In a judgment issued on 15 December in the English High Court (Lehman Brothers International (Europe)(in administration) v CRC Credit Fund Limited & Ors [2009] EWHC 3228), and based on assumed facts presented to him, Mr Justice Briggs described the failure by LBIE to protect client monies from the impact of insolvency as "truly spectacular" and involving "shocking underperformance".

The Court of Appeal handed down its decision on 6 November 2009 upholding the High Court decision that a scheme of arrangement is not an appropriate mechanism by which the administrators of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE) can return assets to LBIE’s clients.