Blue Monkey Gaming v Hudson & Others

Insolvency professionals will welcome the High Court's decision in Blue Monkey Gaming Limited v Hudson & Others [2014] which is clear authority that the onus is upon retention of title claimants, not administrators, to locate and identify retention of title goods. The court made clear that to require the administrator to identify retention of title goods would be "totally unrealistic and practically unworkable."

Many will be familiar with the words “further advances” and associate this term with typical boiler plate provisions in finance documents.

In a recent case (In the matter of Black Ant Co Ltd (in administration) [2014] EWHC 1161 (Ch)(15 April 2014) the High Court provided useful commentary on the meaning of “further advances” in the context of the priority of security.

Re Christophorus 3 Limited [2014] EWHC 1162 (Ch)

On 16 April 2014 we assisted J.K. Buckenham Limited (JKB) in successfully obtaining the court’s leave to convene a meeting of its creditors, a meeting at which JKB will ask such creditors to consider and to vote on a scheme of arrangement under the Companies Act 2006 (the Scheme). JKB is promoting the Scheme as part of a wider solution to end its broking obligations, release trapped cash, relinquish its FCA permissions, and ultimately liquidate.

THE SCHEME

In a landmark decision Pillar Denton Ltd and Others v Jervis and Others [2014] EWCA Civ 180, a group of the UK's largest landlords have successfully overturned previous High Court cases that had allowed insolvent tenants to continue trading from their premises without paying rent. The landlords in this case, which involved the retailer GAME, have been allowed to recover £3,000,000 in outstanding rents from the period of the tenant's administration.

Prayers are answered in the Gamestation verdict, reports Richard Palmer, as the liability of administrators of insolvent companies to pay rent has been clarified.

But is it GAME over?

Pillar Denton Ltd and Others v Jervis and Others [2014] EWCA Civ 180

Summary – What happened?

A group of the UK's largest landlords have successfully overturned previous High Court decisions that had allowed insolvent tenants to continue trading from their premises without paying rent. The landlords in this case, which involved the retailer GAME, have been allowed to recover £3,000,000 in outstanding rents from the period of the tenant's administration.

CLLS responds on bail-in: CLLS' financial and insolvency law committees have responded to Treasury's consultation on the implementation of bail-in powers. CLLS feels it would have been better for the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013 and relevant secondary legislation to have been promulgated only once the EU Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD) was final. However, it appears the UK Government does not want to wait until January 2016 to apply bail-in requirements and so is proceeding ahead of the EU timetable.

In the High Court decision of Jackson v Baker Tilly (unreported, 10 April 2014), the liquidators of an insolvent company successfully applied for the company's accountants to produce documents detailing their dealings with the company.

The claim here related to the ACA Standard Form of Contract for Term Partnering, which as Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart said was specifically devised for situations where one party requires the other to carry out a series of relatively minor but repetitive or cyclical tasks over a substantial period or “Term”: here building, repair and related services for a local authority. The employer or client would place orders for particular “Tasks” during the Term and the contractor (or Connaught), referred to as the “Service Provider”, would carry them out and submit monthly valuations for payment.