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:

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

On September 25, the UK Financial Services Authority (FSA) announced that two UK-based firms have been placed into liquidation by the UK High Court following the FSA’s intervention. The FSA believes that these scams may have fraudulently persuaded up to 800 people into buying worthless shares. Investors are believed to have lost up to £3.5 million ($7.5 million).

Chesteroak Limited and Bingen Investments Limited were shut down following allegations that they were dealing in or arranging deals in shares without proper authorization.

The defendant guaranteed payment of the price of equipment sold by the claimant to the defendant’s subsidiary. The claimant then entered into agreements with the subsidiary and various finance companies under which title in certain of the goods passed to the finance companies in return for payment of part of the relevant purchase price. The subsidiary paid some of the purchase price of the goods, as did the finance companies but the balance remained unpaid when the subsidiary went into liquidation. The claimant claimed on the guarantee and issued proceedings.

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.

The lengthening of the restoration period for dormant companies may make a solvent liquidation an attractive option for some companies. James Stonebridge examines the impact of changes introduced under the Companies Act 2006.

Re Powerhouse Limited: Prudential Assurance Company Limited v PRG Powerhouse Limited [2007] EWHC 1002 Ch Guarantees are widely used in commercial transactions to provide assurance to creditors that debts or other obligations owed to them are discharged fully in the event the principal debtor fails to perform. This assurance was shaken by the steps taken in early 2006 by PRG Powerhouse Limited (Powerhouse) to enter into a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) that contained proposals to release certain parent company guarantees given to landlords of premises being vacated by Powerhouse.

Re Trident Fashions PLC: Exeter City Council v Bairstow [2007] EWHC 400 (Ch)

In March 2007 the High Court ruled that that non-domestic rates are payable as an expense of the administration as a “necessary disbursement” under Rule 2.67(1)(f) Insolvency Rules 1986 (IR), in priority to payment of the administrator’s remuneration.

At the end of 2006 a decision of the Court of Appeal in Churchill v First Independent Factors and Finance Limited (Churchill) caused consternation among those involved in the management of insolvent companies who are also involved in the management of the company that acquires the whole or a substantial part of the insolvent business.