According to recent Italian case law Real Estate Funds may now enter as debtors into the debt restructuring agreements (so called “accordi di ristrutturazione dei debiti”) provided for by the Italian bankruptcy law.1 Reference is made to Milan Court Decrees 6 November 2015 and 3 December 2015 (the “Case Law”).2
Schroder Exempt Property Unit Trust and another v. Birmingham City Council [2014] EWHC 2207
Summary
A landlord is liable for business rates where a tenant's lease is disclaimed, even if the landlord does not take possession of the property following a disclaimer.
Background
In recent years some high profile (and controversial) court decisions have swelled the list of liabilities that must be paid as expenses of an administration. Administration expenses enjoy "super priority", being payable out of floating charge realisations ahead of the claims of preferential creditors and floating charge holders. So, when an otherwise unsecured claim ranks as an administration expense, it clearly benefits the relevant creditor, but at the expense of the floating charge holder.
The case concerning the Game group of companies' administration has now been played out in the Court of Appeal and the eagerly anticipated judgment has been handed down.
The issue at stake concerned a landlord's ability to recover rent as an expense of administration (and therefore payable before other creditors) where such rent is payable in advance but where the tenant's administration occurs immediately before a quarter day's rent falling due.
The Federal Court of Australia in Strawbridge (Administrator), in the matter of CBCH Group Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (No 2) [2020] FCA 472 has made orders to release the administrators of retailer The Colette Group (the Group) from personal liability for rent for a two-week period during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The much anticipated Mainzeal judgment is released
In Intext Coatings Ltd (In Liquidation) v Deo, the High Court was again asked to consider the limits of the equitable remedy of tracing (previously considered here). In particular, the Court was asked to consider the circumstances in which 'backward tracing' (the tracing of trust funds used to repay a debt into the asset over which that debt arose) is available.
Mr Maharaj owned a building company. Ms Nandani, his wife, owns a residential property. Mr Maharaj needed funding, which he could not obtain. However, the necessary funds were loaned to Ms Nandani and secured over her property. Ms Nandani subsequently contended that:
In Purewal v Countrywide Residential Lettings Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1122, the receivers of a property did not make an insurance claim in relation to damage to the property. The mortgagor of the property (a bankrupt) repaired the property himself. He brought an action against the receivers for breach of duty by failing to make an insurance claim, claiming damages for the cost of the repairs.
In our September 2012 insolvency update, we reported on Re Willmott Forests Ltd [2012] VSC 29, where the Victorian Court of Appeal found that a leasehold interest in land is extinguished by a liquidator's disclaimer of the lease pursuant to section 568(1) of the Australian Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).