Summary

The much anticipated judgement of Mr Justice Snowden in relation to a restructuring plan proposal (the “Plans”) made by Virgin Active Holdings Limited, Virgin Active Limited and Virgin Active Health Clubs Limited (the “Plan Companies”) was handed down on 12 May 2021.

Landlords have lost round two in the ongoing battle as to whether rent should be paid as an expense of the administration. The decision of the Court last week in the X-Leisure / Luminar case was in favour of administrators.

Following the Goldacre case, if an administrator is using the property for the purposes of the administration on the quarter day then the full quarter’s rent is payable as an expense of the administration.  What was not clear, was whether if the administrator was appointed just after the quarter day rent was payable as an expense. 

The much anticipated judgement of Mr Justice Snowden in relation to a restructuring plan proposal (the “Plans”) made by Virgin Active Holdings Limited, Virgin Active Limited and Virgin Active Health Clubs Limited (the “Plan Companies”) was handed down on 12 May 2021.

Despite the scale of the pandemic and resulting build-up of Covid related rent arrears, currently estimated at around £4.5bn, business restructuring has been relatively muted. This is partly explained by the moratorium on forfeiture and other restrictions on landlords’ remedies, combined with unprecedented government financial support for struggling businesses.

But rent arrears cannot be pushed down the track indefinitely. As restrictions are eased and focus turns to tackling this debt, business restructuring activity will no doubt intensify.

The government recently published its Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill which includes a temporary “ban” on statutory demands. In its current form, the ban will prevent landlords and other creditors from relying on statutory demands served between 1 March and 1 month after the Bill becomes law. The Bill also includes provision to prevent the winding up of companies where their inability to pay is due to Covid 19.

1.Why use an electronic signature?

2.What is e-signing?

3.Is e-signing valid?

4.What types of document can be signed electronically?

5. Are there any restrictions/protocols relating to electronic signatures?

6. What is the position with overseas entities?

7. E-signing with a secure platform

8. E-signing without a secure platform

1. Why use an electronic signature?

Last September we reported on the Court’s decision on the landlords’ challenge to the Debenhams CVA on grounds of unfair prejudice and material irregularity, in respect of which the landlords have now successfully obtained permission to appeal on various grounds (see below).

Judge Barber has considered the order of priority of payments in an administration and - more specifically - whether the Lundy Granite principle applies to both the rent payable once a company has gone into administration, and to the “top up” obligation requiring the company to replenish a rent deposit, where a landlord had drawn down on the deposit against unpaid rent (Re London Bridge Entertainment Partners LLP (in administration) [2019] EWHC 2932 (CH)).

The Rules

Following an expedited trial, the High Court has rejected an application brought by a group of landlords known as the Combined Property Control Group (“CPC”) to challenge the company voluntary arrangement (“CVA”) proposed by Debenhams Retail Limited (“Debenhams”).

CPC challenged the CVA on five grounds. The judge in the case, Mr Justice Norris, held that four of the five grounds failed and directed certain “Forfeiture Restraint Provisions” be removed from the CVA as a result of the fifth.

The CVA challenge

The landlords’ claim against the Debenhams CVA was put forward on five grounds:

1. Future rent is not a “debt” and so the landlords are not creditors, such that the CVA cannot bind them

REJECTED: The definition of “debt” is broad enough to include pecuniary contingent liabilities, such as future rent.

2. A CVA cannot operate to reduce rent payable under leases: it is automatically unfairly prejudicial