There have been so many articles written and opinions expressed on the spate of cases on the effect of how netting provisions in over-the-counter ("OTC") derivative contracts work when a counterparty becomes in default, that you would be forgiven for being confused about the current position. Now that the dust has settled (for the time being at least), this article takes stock and seeks to make matters as straightforward as possible.

In January we posted on the impact of a case that ruled that landlords are able to claim rent as an expense of the administration when a tenant’s administrators are in occupation of all or part of a leasehold property.

The above is a new Act to make provision about the rights of third parties against insurers of liabilities to third parties in the case where the insured is insolvent, and in certain other cases.

A decision by the High Court in December has strengthened the position of landlords who sometimes do not get paid during the administration even where the administrator is running the business from the property.

Certain categories of expense which may be incurred by the company after it has gone into administration, and which an administrator has to pay are known as "expenses of the administration" and the assets of the company in administration must be applied towards payment of these expenses ahead of any payment to creditors under floating charges or to unsecured creditors.

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.

The case of D/S Norden A/S v Samsun Logix Corp & Ors [2009] EWHC 2304 (Ch) concerned international co-operation in insolvency proceedings under the UNCITRAL model law on cross-border insolvency. S was subject to insolvency proceedings in Korea. The English court, having recognised the Korean insolvency proceedings, had granted a stay on creditors issuing proceedings against S and its property.

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.

This week we have seen the headlines about the Focus DIY Corporate Voluntary Arrangement (CVA). It is reported that landlords have accepted the CVA and that will enable Focus to continue a significant part of the business and to retain a large number of jobs. Welcome news in many respects.

CVAs can have a significant impact on a property investment so this posting considers how CVAs work and their impact on leases?

In DHL GBS (UK) Ltd v Fallimento Finmatica Spa – Butterworths Law Direct 20.2.09 the Commercial Court gave its first decision on the issues dealt with by the ECJ in the Front Comor.

In Masri v Consolidated Contractors (Oil and Gas) Company SAL – Butterworths Law Direct 6.2.09 a receivership order had been made, paragraph 15 of which stated that 'Nothing in this order shall, in respect of assets located outside England and Wales, require the defendants and/or their directors to disobey the order of any court of competent jurisdiction in relation to such assets'.