Secured creditors with an unsecured shortfall cannot claim a share of the prescribed part of the floating charge realisations set aside for unsecured creditors under Section 176A of the Insolvency Act 1986. This applies whether the secured creditor is the holder of a fixed or a floating charge (or both).

The retail sector and its suppliers operate at the sharp end of the economy and feel the impact of tighter consumer spending with more immediacy than most other sectors.

Summary

Background

Background to Re Permacell

With commentators predicting that the real impact of last summer’s credit crunch on corporate liquidations has yet to be felt, how can landlords and tenants of commercial properties prepare for a potential rise in the number of corporate insolvencies?

LANDLORDS’ REMEDIES - THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX

The landlord of a commercial property faced with an insolvent tenant will usually have two concerns:

The subject of gratuitous alienations is a problematic area for the property practitioner. Timing is all-important, and often it only becomes an issue for insolvency reasons retrospectively. Put simply of course, in lay terms a gratuitous alienation is no more than a gift, and there is nothing to prevent an owner of property gifting it to someone if he chooses.

There is a prevailing view that landlords have not fared well in recent developments in insolvency law aimed at furthering a culture of corporate rescue. However, landlords should give a broad welcome to a recent case which sought to deal with the complicated question of what expenses should be considered as “expenses of an administration”.

Administrators to the rescue

The defendant was the sole director of a company which went into liquidation. Almost six years after his appointment as liquidator, the claimant commenced proceedings seeking an order pursuant to s 212 Insolvency Act 1986 that the defendant contribute to the company’s assets on the basis that he had acted in breach of duty of care and skill and in breach of fiduciary duty owed to the company, which had resulted in the company’s deficiencies.

MB had been the secured tenant of a property in which she lived with B, and which she had bought at a substantial discount. The property was conveyed into the joint names of MB and B as joint tenants. Although MB’s mortgage company had insisted the property be in joint names, she claimed that the intention had always been that B would only have a minimal interest in it. He had made no contribution to the purchase price, mortgage repayments or household expenses. When MB had ascertained the effect of the joint tenancy, she gave notice of severance to B.