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.
When people are burdened with debt, they will sometimes resort to underhand tactics to relieve themselves of the consequences. One of the most common strategies is for the debtor to dispose of an asset, which would otherwise be used to pay his or her debts, for less than its market value. In consequence, there is legislation to protect the position of the creditors, who are, unusually, described as ‘victims’ in the legislation.
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.
In a blow to administrators that will surely impact on the timings of any administration, most particularly those involving a large property portfolio, HHJ Purle, sitting in the High Court, has handed down a decision that will have ramifications potentially as serious as those of Re Trident Fashions for administrators in considering how long to remain in office, or indeed whether to accept an appointment at all.
Summary and implications
Two recent cases involving company administrations have seen the court take very different approaches to an administrator’s demands. The court has shown that it will look at the overall purpose of the administration before deciding whether to allow administrators to use their powers. Clients should consider:
In Clydesdale Financial Services Ltd and others v Robert Smailes and others [2009] EWHC 3190 (Ch), the principal issues before the Court were whether the third claimant, Focus Insurance Company Ltd (Focus), had a real prospect of success in its claims to be, first, a creditor (under the Insolvency Act 1986) of the fifth defendant, Alexander Samuel LLP (LLP) in respect of unpaid premiums and, second, a "victim" under ss.423-425 of the Insolvency Act 1986 of the sale of LLP's business to Jiva Solicitors LLP (Jiva) effected around the same time as it went into administration.
In the last edition of Real Estate Update, we considered the position of a landlord wishing to keep the lease of premises to a company in administration ongoing and in what circumstances he will receive the full rent (ie 100 pence in the pound). If, however, the tenant is in administration and the landlord would like to bring the lease to an end, he would only be entitled to forfeit the lease if the administrator consents or the court grants an order giving him permission to do so.1
We have spent a lot of time thinking about landlords being affected by tenants going into administration over the last year. This posting is about a court case where the landlord’s administrators were trying to postpone the tenant’s application to Court for the grant of a new tenancy under the 1954 Act.
The administrators failed in their attempts to defer the 1954 Act proceedings even though it severely affected the value of the property in question and the amount that was going to be paid out to the secured creditor.
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.
We have spent a lot of time thinking about landlords being affected by tenants going into administration over the last year. This posting is about a court case where the landlord’s administrators were trying to postpone the tenant’s application to Court for the grant of a new tenancy under the 1954 Act.
The administrators failed in their attempts to defer the 1954 Act proceedings even though it severely affected the value of the property in question and the amount that was going to be paid out to the secured creditor.