Background to Re Permacell

With commentators predicting that the real impact of last summer’s credit crunch on corporate liquidations has yet to be felt, how can landlords and tenants of commercial properties prepare for a potential rise in the number of corporate insolvencies?

LANDLORDS’ REMEDIES - THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX

The landlord of a commercial property faced with an insolvent tenant will usually have two concerns:

The subject of gratuitous alienations is a problematic area for the property practitioner. Timing is all-important, and often it only becomes an issue for insolvency reasons retrospectively. Put simply of course, in lay terms a gratuitous alienation is no more than a gift, and there is nothing to prevent an owner of property gifting it to someone if he chooses.

There is a prevailing view that landlords have not fared well in recent developments in insolvency law aimed at furthering a culture of corporate rescue. However, landlords should give a broad welcome to a recent case which sought to deal with the complicated question of what expenses should be considered as “expenses of an administration”.

Administrators to the rescue

In Lexi Holdings plc v Luqman and others – Butterworths Law Direct 17.8.07 the claimant company (the company), by its joint administrators, commenced proceedings against the first Defendant and his family, including the fifth Defendant. The company successfully applied without notice for freezing orders against the fifth Defendant.

The 4th session of the committee of governmental experts on Intermediated Securities met in May 2007 to continue negotiation of the draft Convention. The Convention deals primarily with the rights of account holders in relation to intermediated securities - securities held through financial intermediaries.

On September 25, the UK Financial Services Authority (FSA) announced that two UK-based firms have been placed into liquidation by the UK High Court following the FSA’s intervention. The FSA believes that these scams may have fraudulently persuaded up to 800 people into buying worthless shares. Investors are believed to have lost up to £3.5 million ($7.5 million).

Chesteroak Limited and Bingen Investments Limited were shut down following allegations that they were dealing in or arranging deals in shares without proper authorization.

Having obtained a possession order against the claimant’s property, the bank then sold it. Issues arose as to whether certain fixtures, fittings and chattels in the property formed part of the sale of the property. The claimant brought claims, amongst others, to recover the fittings and other items, a claim for damages for conversion of those items, and a claim that the property had not been effectively transferred to the buyer as the bank had no title to transfer the chattels to the buyer.

The defendant guaranteed payment of the price of equipment sold by the claimant to the defendant’s subsidiary. The claimant then entered into agreements with the subsidiary and various finance companies under which title in certain of the goods passed to the finance companies in return for payment of part of the relevant purchase price. The subsidiary paid some of the purchase price of the goods, as did the finance companies but the balance remained unpaid when the subsidiary went into liquidation. The claimant claimed on the guarantee and issued proceedings.

The defendant supplied drink to the owner of a club, the cost of which was secured by a charge over the club premises. The owner wished to re-finance his debt to the defendant and took a remortgage with the claimant to be secured as a fist legal charge on both the club and the owner’s house. Part of the remortgage monies were paid to the defendant in partial satisfaction of the sums outstanding. Both the claimant and defendant were granted legal charges over the house.