As the prospects for business survival become ever tougher due to challenging economic conditions, administrators and liquidators are increasingly finding themselves having to justify to the courts whether or not costs should be treated as an expense of the administration or liquidation.
Sums incurred or paid as an expense of an administration or liquidation are, unlike debts incurred before the appointment of the administrator or liquidator, paid in preference to unsecured debts and also before the administrator or liquidator's fees and expenses.
The Supreme Court decides how client moneys are to be allocated in the Lehman estate, which has far-reaching implications for distributions in other financial collapses.
The Supreme Court has recently handed down a decision in a contentious and difficult application in the Lehman administration, a decision which fundamentally affects the allocation of client moneys in the Lehman estate.
In our Law-Now of 4 April 2012 (click here for link), we reported on the decision of the court in the case of Leisure (Norwich) II Limited v Luminar Lava Ignite Limited (in administration). The detailed judgment has now been released, setting out the rationale for the decision and summarising the position on rents in administration generally.
The legal position on this issue is now:
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
A recent Court of Appeal case confirms that the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 does apply to judgments in insolvency matters and that the Insolvency Act 1986 can be used to enforce a foreign judgment.
In New Cap Reinsurance Corporation Ltd & Anr v AE Grant & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 971, the Court of Appeal upheld the first instance decision of the Companies Court that a judgment obtained in Australia could be enforced in England under section 426 of the Insolvency Act (the IA) and at common law.
NEW CAP RE: THE FACTS
New rules imposing extra regulation on pre-packaged insolvency sales by liquidators and administrators were expected to go live in October, but they will not now come into force before April 2012, according to the Insolvency Service. The delay is apparently due to the continued debate on the proposal for liquidators and administrators to have to give a three day notice period of a proposed sale aimed at giving creditors a chance to "express concerns ... or make a higher offer for the assets".
The Court of Appeal handed down its judgment on 14 October 2011 unanimously upholding the first instance decision that a Financial Support Direction (FSD) issued by the Pensions Regulator to an entity after it has commenced insolvency proceedings will rank as an expense of the administration, therefore affording it super-priority over floating charge holders and other unsecured creditors. This decisions has significant implications for lenders to groups with UK defined benefit pension plans if any of their security is taken as a floating charge.
Payless Cash & Carry Limited v Patel and Others [2011]
The decision of Mr Justice Mann in the High Court in Payless Cash & Carry Limited v Patel and Others [2011] exemplifies the detailed investigation which can be carried out by the appointment of a provisional liquidator or a liquidator in cases of suspected fraud. It also contains some useful comments on the extent of the liquidator’s evidential burden in such cases.
Recent remarks by the English High Court in the insolvency case Green (Liquidator of Stealth Construction Limited) -v- Ireland [2011] EWHC 1305 (Ch) suggest that in some circumstances, and at least in the context of fast-moving real property transactions, an exchange of emails may well satisfy the requisite formalities for creation of a binding and enforceable contract.