A recent decision from the High Court has shed some light on the remedies available to landlords under insolvency legislation against tenants who enter into administration. The decision provides useful guidance on the ability of a landlord to exercise its right of forfeiture.

On 2 May 2007 the House of Lords ruled that the mere appointment of a receiver was not enough for a company to recover damages for business contracts that were allegedly lost as a result of that appointment.

In a decision that will have important repercussions for creditors with the benefit of guarantees, the High Court this week has held that a company in financial difficulties may not propose a voluntary arrangement which is unfairly prejudicial on its terms to certain creditors.

Re Powerhouse

The Powerhouse CVA, which sought to strip away guarantees provided by the parent company to landlords of Powerhouse, has been struck down as unfairly prejudicial by the High Court. However, certain aspects of the judgement remain unclear and could be subject to future appeal…

BACKGROUND TO THE POWERHOUSE CVA

Powerhouse (an electrical retailer) proposed a CVA on 1 February 2006 with the intention of closing 35 of its stores (the Closed Premises).

On July 19, 2024, Judge Michael Wiles of the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued a ruling in In re Mercon Coffee Corporation, Case No. 23-11945, invalidating insider releases in a proposed chapter 11 plan on the basis that the releases were improper retention-related transfers.

Judge Wiles found that he could not approve the releases – even though the debtors had promised them and insiders had relied upon that promise – because the releases did not meet the strict requirements of Bankruptcy Code Section 503(c).

Case summary:

When a contractor failed to pay certain agreed invoices the sub-contractor issued a winding up petition. The contractor applied to halt the advertising of the petition on the grounds that the debts were bona fide disputed on substantial grounds as there was a cross claim which exceeded the amount claimed. The court refused to halt proceedings because the absence of a withholding notice under the HGCRA meant that there were no substantial grounds for disputing the petition.

Comment:

Several tort claims were made against T & N Limited (“the Insured”) arising out of its use of asbestos. As a consequence it became unlikely to be able to pay its debts. Administrators were appointed for the purposes of approving a scheme of arrangement under section 425 of the Companies Act 1985.

Several tort claims were made against T & N Limited (“the Insured”) arising out of its use of asbestos. As a consequence it became unlikely to be able to pay its debts. Administrators were appointed for the purposes of approving a scheme of arrangement under section 425 of the Companies Act 1985.

Freakley v Centre Reinsurance International Company & Ors [2006] UKHL 45

This case concerns whether a claim to reimbursement of claims-handling expenses should have priority over other creditors on insolvency of the insured.

On 2 March 2007 the High Court handed down the first decision on whether non-domestic rates are payable by an administrator as an expense, and in priority to his remuneration, under Rule 2.67 Insolvency Rules 1986 ("IR"). The judge determined that rates in respect of occupied business premises are a "necessary disbursement" (Rule 2.67(f) IR) of an administration.

Although it was not argued, the judge also expressed the view that this liability to pay rates incurred during the period of the administration would be unaltered if the property were unoccupied during this time.