In June 2007 we reported on the decision in Prudential Assurance Company Ltd v PRG Powerhouse Limited. Although the case has given rise to a great deal of debate, until now there has been no subsequent reported case in which the court has had to consider whether and how a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) might fairly effect a compromise of a landlord's claim against a guarantor of its tenant.

Nortel Networks UK Limited (the company) was a tenant under two leases. The company went into administration. The administrators occupied a small proportion of each of the premises to enable them to carry out the administration. Under the terms of both leases rent was payable quarterly in advance.

The landlord applied to the court for an order directing the administrators to pay the rent as an expense of the administration.

An agreement with a company has gone into arrears. The vehicles may or may not have been sold. The company has placed itself into voluntary liquidation. Can the finance company take steps to protect itself if it suspects that there has been mismanagement or misappropriation of funds within the company? Yes. Where "prejudice" will be suffered by a creditor, the court can order a compulsory liquidation, where the activities of the company will be more vigorously examined than might otherwise be the case with a voluntary liquidation.

Where "prejudice" is suffered by a creditor or contributory, the court can order a compulsory liquidation despite a voluntary liquidation having already been entered into.

The making of a bankruptcy order alone will not deprive a judgment creditor of a final charging order where it is obtained before the bankruptcy order is made.

A question facing many landlords is whether, when a tenant company faces insolvency and shows no intention of continuing to trade from the premises, they should take back the property and seek to relet it?

There are several key issues here, including:

• rates liability
• mitigating losses
• ability to recover from third parties and former tenants.

A landlord's decision has often turned on the type of insolvency faced by the tenant.

If a liquidator disclaims the lease:

Although service of a statutory demand or winding-up petition on a company is a blunt and unsophisticated debt recovery tool, it will often have the desired effect for a creditor as they are seldom ignored and ignored only at the company's peril. It can often prompt payment of the sum due, or judgment owed, where previously there has been prevarication and empty promises of payment.

Here is a reminder of some important issues a (solvent) company should consider if a statutory demand or petition is served upon it.

Doing nothing is not an option

The threat of insolvency proceedings against a corporate debtor can greatly assist a creditor's primary objective of getting paid, preferably in advance of everyone else. This is particularly so where the debtor is prevaricating but there is no genuine dispute that the sum in question is due and owing. Although the courts decry the use of the winding-up procedure as a means of debt collection, it is often a very effective tool.

Consider the following when faced with a corporate debtor who is refusing, without genuine reason, to settle its debts:

Pre-2006, it was always clear that TUPE applied to transfer employees working in a business when it was bought out of administration. However, changes in 2006 provided that the automatic transfer principle would not apply to any transfer of a business or undertaking where the transferor was the subject of bankruptcy proceedings, which had been 'instituted with a view to the liquidation of the assets of the transferor'.

This month the new Insolvency Rules 2016 came into force, replacing the Insolvency Rules 1986. We cover this, and other issues affecting professionals in the insolvency and fraud investigation industry below.