Virgin Active has been in the news recently, as it has proposed restructuring plans which rely on the new legislation found in the Corporate Governance and Insolvency Act 2020.

In this insight, we will explain:

This article first appeared in Corporate Rescue and Insolvency (2019) 6 CRI 218.

In this journal in 2015, I wrote on the subject 'Funding insolvency litigation: a new dawn', outlining various streams of funding available to insolvency practitioners (IPs) (see (2015) 5 CRI 183). Since then, the sun has set on one era and risen again. This article considers key developments in litigation funding in recent years, as well as upcoming reforms which may further change the landscape.

Key Points

The new housing administration regime for registered providers of social housing is now in force. Our latest Insight introduces the new legislation and highlights some of the key ways in which a housing administration will differ from a normal administration process.

Less than a year after it came into effect on 1 August 2016, the first judgment in relation to the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 (the TP Act 2010) has been handed down in the case of BAE Systems Pension Fund (Trustees) Limited (the Pension Fund) v Bowmer and Kirkland Limited and others (B&K).

The Court of Appeal has decided that rent accruing during a period of administration should be treated as an expense of the administration, irrespective of the date on which it falls due for payment. Administration expenses are paid by administrators in priority to liabilities owed to holders of security.

The EAT's judgment

Nortel Networks UK Limited (the company) was a tenant under two leases. The company went into administration. The administrators occupied a small proportion of each of the premises to enable them to carry out the administration. Under the terms of both leases rent was payable quarterly in advance.

The landlord applied to the court for an order directing the administrators to pay the rent as an expense of the administration.

Where a debtor's assets exceed his liabilities, the onus is on the debtor to prove he can not pay his debts if a creditor seeks to annul the bankruptcy order.

In Paulin v Paulin and another, the defendant petitioned for his own bankruptcy claiming he was unable to pay his debts. The claimant applied for the order to be annulled claiming the defendant could afford to pay his debts and was deliberately attempting to defeat her claims in the matrimonial proceedings.

An agreement signed by a director on behalf of his company containing a promise by the company to pay for goods to be ordered in the future, rendered the director personally liable where he knew at the time of signing that the company was insolvent and had no prospects of becoming solvent.

The claimant appealed against a decision that her former husband’s one third interest in the matrimonial home vested in his trustee in bankruptcy (the first defendant) free from any rights asserted by her, so permitting an order for possession and sale of the property. The claimant argued that pursuant to a matrimonial consent order made prior to the bankruptcy, she had a right of exclusive occupation of the property until remarriage, cohabitation or death.