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.
The Joint Administrators (the “Administrators”) of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (“LBIE”) have issued a notice, dated December 4, 2009 (the “Notice”), pursuant to Rule 2.95(1) of the U.K. Insolvency Rules 1986, announcing their intent to make a distribution (by payment of an interim dividend) to preferential creditors (if any) and unsecured, non-preferential creditors of LBIE. The Notice was authorized on December 2, 2009, by an order of the High Court of Justice (Companies Court) in London (the “U.K. Court Order”).
In Clydesdale Financial Services Ltd and others v Robert Smailes and others [2009] EWHC 3190 (Ch), the principal issues before the Court were whether the third claimant, Focus Insurance Company Ltd (Focus), had a real prospect of success in its claims to be, first, a creditor (under the Insolvency Act 1986) of the fifth defendant, Alexander Samuel LLP (LLP) in respect of unpaid premiums and, second, a "victim" under ss.423-425 of the Insolvency Act 1986 of the sale of LLP's business to Jiva Solicitors LLP (Jiva) effected around the same time as it went into 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 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".
As previously described in our Alert of Oct.
On 1 May 2009, the administrators of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) ("LBIE") applied to the English High Court for directions on certain issues relating to "Client Money" (as defined in the UK Financial Services Authority's Client Assets Rules, the "CASS Rules") held by LBIE. LBIE was regulated by the FSA and was required to comply with the CASS Rules.
The case of D/S Norden A/S v Samsun Logix Corp & Ors [2009] EWHC 2304 (Ch) concerned international co-operation in insolvency proceedings under the UNCITRAL model law on cross-border insolvency. S was subject to insolvency proceedings in Korea. The English court, having recognised the Korean insolvency proceedings, had granted a stay on creditors issuing proceedings against S and its property.
The first appeal ruling from the newly formed UK Supreme Court concerned the construction of a clause setting out the distribution of assets in a collapsed structured investment vehicle (“SIV”). For the creditors attempting to salvage the remains of the SIV, and onlookers in similar situations, the judicial process has been a rollercoaster ride which has left them reeling.
In William Hare Ltd v Shepherd Construction Ltd, the judgment of which can be accessed here, the consequences of an anachronistic piece of contract drafting cost the losing party over £1 million. The issue here was whether or not the contractor under a building sub-contract could successfully pass the risk of the employer’s insolvency onto its sub-contractor by means of what is commonly known as a “pay when paid” clause.