Leisure Norwich (2) Ltd & Others v Luminar Lava Ignite Limited & Others - [2012] EWHC 951(Ch). Incurring liabilities to third parties is often necessary in order to carry out an effective administration of an insolvent company.

With the number of retail administrations up 15% in the first quarter of 2012 compared to a year ago (according to research by Deloitte), the recent High Court case of Leisure (Norwich) II Limited v Luminar Lava Ignite Limited (in administration) 28 March 2012 will be of particular interest to landlords.  They will not be pleased with the decision that unpaid rent which falls due prior to the appointment of an administrator/liquidator amounts to an unsecured claim against the insolvent tenant.  It is not to be treated as an expense of the administration/liquidation (and w

Landlords have lost round two in the ongoing battle as to whether rent should be paid as an expense of the administration. The decision of the Court last week in the X-Leisure / Luminar case was in favour of administrators.

Following the Goldacre case, if an administrator is using the property for the purposes of the administration on the quarter day then the full quarter’s rent is payable as an expense of the administration.  What was not clear, was whether if the administrator was appointed just after the quarter day rent was payable as an expense. 

A common issue facing landlords of commercial premises is to decide what to do if one of its tenants has stopped paying the rent and has entered into one of the types of insolvency prescribed by statute. In the case of companies, these can include company voluntary arrangements, administration, administrative receivership, Law of Property Act receivership or liquidation. In the case of individuals, they might include individual voluntary arrangements or bankruptcy.

If a tenant company fails to pay its rent when due (subject to any grace periods in the lease) the landlord ordinarily has the right to forfeit the lease either by peaceable re-entry of the property or by legal proceedings. However, if the tenant is insolvent (or soon to become insolvent) then this right may be stayed by the moratorium under the Insolvency Act 1986.

The Supreme Court recently considered the scope of the anti-deprivation principle, in Belmont Park Investments PTY Limited (respondent) v. BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited and Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc (appellant) [2011] UKSC 38 (Belmont). Understanding the scope of this principle is important for anyone entering a contract where the parties’ rights and obligations change if one of them enters an insolvency procedure. Robert Spedding explains how the courts applied the principle in Belmont and makes some practical suggestions for avoiding problems.

The Insolvency Act 1986 makes provision for, amongst other things, bankruptcy and Debt Relief Orders.

When a person is made bankrupt, his property vests in the trustee in bankruptcy. Some items, however, are excluded from the estate, including any assured or secure tenancy (s283). Once a bankruptcy order has been made, no creditor in respect of a debt provable in the bankruptcy may have any remedy against the property of the bankrupt 'in respect of that debt' (s285(3)(a)).

A CVA was introduced as one of the rescue arrangements under the Insolvency Act 1986. It allows a company to settle unsecured debts by paying only a proportion of the amount owed, or to vary the terms on which it pays its unsecured creditors. Whilst a CVA only requires approval of a 75% majority of the creditors by value, it binds every unsecured creditor of the company, including any that voted against it or did not vote at all.

A CVA was introduced as one of the rescue arrangements under the Insolvency Act 1986. It allows a company to settle unsecured debts by paying only a proportion of the amount owed, or to vary the terms on which it pays its unsecured creditors. Whilst a CVA only requires approval of a 75% majority of the creditors by value, it binds every unsecured creditor of the company, including any that voted against it or did not vote at all.

Where lenders rely on floating charge security to make recoveries from companies in administration, some recent cases have massively increased the potential for administration expenses to swallow up those recoveries. The more well-known cases could just be the start. So, what are the potential risks? What can lenders do in the face of the law as it currently stands? What is going to happen next?

The Nortel decisions