A guarantor can be made bankrupt where the terms of the guarantee create a debt obligation.

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.

"Leaving the mice in charge of the cheese..." is how one commentator described the now far from unusual phenomenon of the pre-pack administration sale. But what is meant by a "pre-pack"; are they lawful and what is the legitimate area for concern? While they were fairly uncommon in the past, pre-packs now seem to have become all the rage. Why? What scope is there for challenge or review if abuse is suspected?

What is a "pre-pack"?

Where a receiver of an insolvent company brings an unsuccessful claim, a personal costs order will not be made against the receiver unless there are exceptional circumstances making it just to do so.

The claimant obtained a judgment against the defendant for breach of a guarantee. The defendant entered into an IVA with his creditors, which included his liability to the claimant. The defendant paid the judgment sum to the claimant, but not the interest awarded on it. The claimant contended that the award of interest was a post-IVA claim, and threatened to bankrupt the defendant which would lead to a termination of the IVA. The defendant applied for a stay of execution of the interest part of the judgment, on the ground that it was within the IVA.

Criminal prosecutions for administrators are rare, and rarer still are prosecutions under employment legislation. However, a recent decision has confirmed that an administrator can be prosecuted and personally liable for a failure to notify the Secretary of State of proposed collective redundancies under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA).

The (the CIG Act) received Royal Assent on 25 June 2020 and effects wide ranging changes.

A borrower who, without having the right to do so, would not pay a credit instalment due between 12 March 2020 and one month after the end of the state of health emergency (which is supposed to last two months as from 24 March 2020 but could be extended), could argue that the loan documents' acceleration clause and default interest clause (a liquidated damage clause) shall only take effect after that period pursuant to Ordinance No. 2020-306 of 25 March 2020, adopted further to the "emergency" Law No. 2020-290 of 23 March 2020.

Two priority issues arise between creditors of a common debtor:

APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL DISMISSED

37906 Michel Guay v. Ville de Brownsburg-Chatham, Municipalité Régionale de Comté d’Argenteuil, Josée Davidson (Que.)

Contracts – Formation – Municipal law