Key points

Earlier this week, the English Court of Appeal overturned the recent decisions in Goldacre (Goldacre (Offices) Ltd v Nortel Networks UK Ltd [2009] EWCH 3389 (Ch);2011 Ch 455) and Luminar (Leisure (Norwich) II Ltd v Luminar Lava Ignite [2012] EWCH 951 (Ch)) regarding the treatment of rent in an administration.

21 November 2013

[2013] EWHC 3612 (Comm)

Commercial Court, Queen's Bench Division (Hamblen J)

Appointment of a receiver to bring protective claims against shareholder and former directors of a company by a potential creditor under an indemnity

18 December 2013

[2013] EWCA Civ 1629

Court of Appeal (Arden, Davis, Floyd LJJ)

Who pays the trustee's costs on an annulment?

The Court of Appeal considered the trustee’s recovery of costs following a successful application by bankrupts, Dr and Mr Oraki, for annulment of bankruptcy orders.  The Court approved Redbridge LBC v Mustafa [2010] EWHC (Ch) 1105), identifying four types of costs to be considered when a bankruptcy is annulled:

The Court of Appeal in Pillar Denton Ltd & Others v (1) Jervis (2) Maddison and (3) Game Retail Ltd ([2014] EWCA Civ 180) yesterday overruled previous High Court authority, deciding that rent should be treated as an expense of the administration based on actual usage and not on when the rent falls due. What does this mean for practitioners?

The background

Pillar Denton Ltd & others v Jervis & others [2014] EWCA 180 (“Game Station”)

The outcome of this appeal has been awaited with a high degree of interest.  The issue was the extent to which rent should be payable as an expense of an administration or liquidation; if it is payable as an expense, it sits near the top of the priority order for the distribution of the tenant’s assets, and will usually be paid in full.  Otherwise, it is among the unsecured debts, and the landlord will have to wait for whatever dividend is ultimately payable.

This week will hopefully see the end of a long running battle between Britain’s biggest landlords and the restructuring profession. On 12 February, the Court of Appeal will start to hear an appeal relating to the administration of Game Station (Jervis v Pillar Denton). It will consider whether the administrators should pay rent for the properties which they occupied during the administration as an administration expense, so ensuring the landlords receive their rent in priority to payments  made to other creditors.

Background

This week the Court of Appeal has heard the long awaited appeal in Jervis and another v Pillar Denton Limited (Game Station) and others, better known as the Game Station case, which (depending on the outcome) may trigger a drastic change to the way in which rent in administration is treated.

Can a debtor be found to be balance sheet or cash flow insolvent even though its obligations are limited (in terms of creditor recourse) to the available assets? This was the question facing the High Court in Re ARM Asset Backed Securities SA [2013] EWCH 3351.

The background

What happens to funds held in escrow when the paying entity goes into administration?

The background

Escrow mechanisms are familiar territory for most practitioners. The case of Bristol Alliance Nominee No. 1 Ltd and others v Neil Andrew Bennett and others [2013] EWCA Civ 1626 explores what happens when funds are held in escrow at a time when the paying entity goes into administration.