Imagine: you are a lender that has loaned substantial sums of money to an individual, secured by real property owned by the borrower. After the borrower defaults and negotiations fail, you seek and obtain the appointment of a receiver. But now litigation ensues—about the loan documents, about contract defaults, about interest rates, about foreign law. After a substantial investment of time and money, your trial date draws closer. At some point during this odyssey, your borrower secretly transfers the real property collateral to a newly-created, single-member LLC.

Phones 4u went into administration on 15 September 2014 following a decision by EE not to renew its contract. At the time of writing, all 560 stores and 160 concessions have been closed, pending a decision by the firm’s administrator whether to continue trading or break the company up in deals with, amongst others, EE and Vodafone.

The Implications of the Willmott Growers Decision

On 4 December 2013 the High Court handed down its decision in Willmott Growers Group Inc v Willmott Forests Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed (In Liquidation)) [2013] HCA 51 (Willmott Growers case), clarifying the scope of a liquidator’s statutory power of disclaimer.

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.

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

In the recent decision of Topland Portfolio No.1 Limited v Smiths News Trading Limited [2014] EWCA Civ 18, the Court of Appeal has given a timely reminder of the need for landlords to tread carefully when dealing with leases to ensure that a tenant guarantee remains effective.

The current economic recession has been particularly acute in one of the pillars of the national economy, the construction and real-estate sector. This sector, which had already been undergoing a slowdown in recent years following the so-called “real-estate boom”, now stands in a profound and particular crisis with sales coming to a standstill, caused not only by the overall market situation, but mainly due to the restrictions placed by banks on loans, which are putting an economic brake on entrepreneurs.  

The past eighteen months have seen a marked increase in the use of the Company Voluntary Arrangement (“CVA”) by retailers to reduce their lease liabilities and win the release of onerous parent company guarantees, with several high street names going through the process. Although this practice received cautious support from landlords, real concern continues to be voiced over the practice of “guarantee stripping”.

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.   

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.