The recent English court decision in Goldacre (Offices) Limited v Nortel Networks UK Limited (in administration) [2009] EWCH 3389 (Ch) may be controversial and raises thorny practical issues, especially in relation to the restructurings of retail businesses.
This is the first of several posts on gathering agreements in bankruptcy, covenants running with the land and rejection claims that arise when a debtor finds gathering agreements financially burdensome. As our readers know, we waited with much anticipation for theSabine ruling and wait with equal anticipation for the ruling on similar issues in QuickSilver. Being pragmatic business lawyers we decided to blog on what parties to gathering agreements should be doing now in light of the non-binding, advisory Sabine ruling.
In the event of a tenant becoming insolvent, it is clearly important for a landlord to know where rent payable ranks in administration. A recent landmark decision handed down by the High Court strengthens the position of landlords by deciding that rent can now be more widely payable as an expense of the administrator.
Background
Simply, if rent is ranked as an expense of the administration1 then it is almost always discharged in full as a mandatory expense of the administrator, rather than being placed with lower priority creditors.
Last week, we discussed the complexities of metals exploration chapter 11 bankruptcy cases and addressed several of the notable issues that arise in those cases. The discussion of significant issues continues below.
On 1 April 2008 The Non-Domestic Rating (Unoccupied Property) (England) Regulations 2008 (Regulations) came into force. The Regulations extend the exclusion from the obligation to pay rates in respect of unoccupied non-domestic rates to those premises where the owner (or lessee, being a person entitled to possession) is a company in administration pursuant to Schedule B1 Insolvency Act 1986 or is subject to an administration order under the former administration provisions.
Individuals may want to think twice before seeking relief under chapter 11 following a recent decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In Zachary v.
This Act received Royal Assent in July 2007 but no date for implementation has been published yet.
In addition to the provisions contained in this Act aimed at improving the working of the tribunals system and increasing judicial diversity, are several sections that will be of interest to financiers and insolvency professionals:
A district court judge in the Middle District of Pennsylvania recently vacated a bankruptcy court’s decision allowing rejection of an oil and gas lease under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code. The District Court held that a debtor’s oil and gas lease was a conveyance of an interest in real property and not an executory contract or unexpired lease that could be rejected in bankruptcy under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code.
Re Powerhouse Limited: Prudential Assurance Company Limited v PRG Powerhouse Limited [2007] EWHC 1002 Ch Guarantees are widely used in commercial transactions to provide assurance to creditors that debts or other obligations owed to them are discharged fully in the event the principal debtor fails to perform. This assurance was shaken by the steps taken in early 2006 by PRG Powerhouse Limited (Powerhouse) to enter into a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) that contained proposals to release certain parent company guarantees given to landlords of premises being vacated by Powerhouse.
On 14 September 2015, judgment was handed down in the case of Re SSRL Realisations Limited (In Administration), in which a landlord was granted permission to forfeit a lease by peaceable re-entry. The case will be of interest to insolvency practitioners and landlords alike – but for very different reasons.