The Court of Appeal has handed down an important judgment for landlords and insolvency practitioners, in the case of Jervis v Pillar Denton; re Games Station (“Game”).

The Court of Appeal has changed the law relating to the liability of administrators and liquidators to pay rent as an expense of the administration or liquidation.

The Court of Appeal in Pillar Denton Ltd & Others v (1) Jervis (2) Maddison and (3) Game Retail Ltd ([2014] EWCA Civ 180) yesterday overruled previous High Court authority, deciding that rent should be treated as an expense of the administration based on actual usage and not on when the rent falls due. What does this mean for practitioners?

The background

Pillar Denton Ltd & others v Jervis & others [2014] EWCA 180 (“Game Station”)

The outcome of this appeal has been awaited with a high degree of interest.  The issue was the extent to which rent should be payable as an expense of an administration or liquidation; if it is payable as an expense, it sits near the top of the priority order for the distribution of the tenant’s assets, and will usually be paid in full.  Otherwise, it is among the unsecured debts, and the landlord will have to wait for whatever dividend is ultimately payable.

This week will hopefully see the end of a long running battle between Britain’s biggest landlords and the restructuring profession. On 12 February, the Court of Appeal will start to hear an appeal relating to the administration of Game Station (Jervis v Pillar Denton). It will consider whether the administrators should pay rent for the properties which they occupied during the administration as an administration expense, so ensuring the landlords receive their rent in priority to payments  made to other creditors.

Background

On 4 February 2014, our client, Zlomrex International Finance S.A. (“ZIF”), completed the restructuring of its approximately €118 million senior secured high yield notes due 2014 (the “Existing High Yield Bonds”). ZIF, a company incorporated in France, is a financing vehicle for the Cognor group, one of the largest suppliers (by volume) of scrap metal, the second largest seller of semi‑finished steel products and the fifth largest seller (by volume) of finished steel products in Poland.

Last week I blogged about the Capital Gains Tax consequences of undervaluing property. This blog will look at another situation when undervaluing property or shares could lead to future exposure in an insolvency situation.

This week the Court of Appeal has heard the long awaited appeal in Jervis and another v Pillar Denton Limited (Game Station) and others, better known as the Game Station case, which (depending on the outcome) may trigger a drastic change to the way in which rent in administration is treated.

This case considered whether Bulmers Transport Limited (“Bulmers”) was under the “supervision of an insolvency practitioner” pursuant to Regulation 8(7) Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (“TUPE”).

Comment

The case provides some helpful clarity on the inter-relationship of Regulation 8(7) TUPE and s388 Insolvency Act 1986, when determining whether a company is under the “supervision of an insolvency practitioner”.

New measures intended to be implemented by the FCA next year, will have a significant impact on companies with controlling shareholders who are premium listed and also on those companies considering joining the premium segment. They follow the regulator's assessment of the premium listing regime over the last couple of years, as it considered how to bolster minority shareholder protection without risking damage to London's attractiveness as a listing venue.