Snapshot

The Court of Appeal’s judgment in Jervis v Pillar Denton Limited (Game Station) [2014] EWCA Civ 180 on 24 February 2014 has brought welcome clarity to when rent qualifies as an administration expense.

The Court of Appeal has ruled that:

This week will hopefully see the end of a long running battle between Britain’s biggest landlords and the restructuring profession. On 12 February, the Court of Appeal will start to hear an appeal relating to the administration of Game Station (Jervis v Pillar Denton). It will consider whether the administrators should pay rent for the properties which they occupied during the administration as an administration expense, so ensuring the landlords receive their rent in priority to payments  made to other creditors.

Background

On 4 February 2014, our client, Zlomrex International Finance S.A. (“ZIF”), completed the restructuring of its approximately €118 million senior secured high yield notes due 2014 (the “Existing High Yield Bonds”). ZIF, a company incorporated in France, is a financing vehicle for the Cognor group, one of the largest suppliers (by volume) of scrap metal, the second largest seller of semi‑finished steel products and the fifth largest seller (by volume) of finished steel products in Poland.

Last week I blogged about the Capital Gains Tax consequences of undervaluing property. This blog will look at another situation when undervaluing property or shares could lead to future exposure in an insolvency situation.

This week the Court of Appeal has heard the long awaited appeal in Jervis and another v Pillar Denton Limited (Game Station) and others, better known as the Game Station case, which (depending on the outcome) may trigger a drastic change to the way in which rent in administration is treated.

Can a debtor be found to be balance sheet or cash flow insolvent even though its obligations are limited (in terms of creditor recourse) to the available assets? This was the question facing the High Court in Re ARM Asset Backed Securities SA [2013] EWCH 3351.

The background

What happens to funds held in escrow when the paying entity goes into administration?

The background

Escrow mechanisms are familiar territory for most practitioners. The case of Bristol Alliance Nominee No. 1 Ltd and others v Neil Andrew Bennett and others [2013] EWCA Civ 1626 explores what happens when funds are held in escrow at a time when the paying entity goes into administration.

The Court of Appeal has today handed down judgment in the hugely anticipated litigation involving the Game group of companies, deciding that, where a company goes into administration and continues to trade from property, rent will be payable on a daily basis for the period during which the company actually occupies the premises.

Michael John Andrew Jervis v Pillar Denton Limited (Game Station) and others [2013] EWHC 2171 (Ch) (“Game”)

Game has come to the courts against the background of two previous High Court decisions on the treatment of lease rents in administration. Recent decisions on this point have arisen out of cases where landlords made claims for rent in the administration of tenant companies.

Costs are the price that creditors pay for an insolvency practitioner’s (“IP”) expertise and time in dealing with a trading bankrupt or insolvent business. However, where the assets are insufficient to meet the existing debts, the imposition of a practitioner’s fees and expenses being paid out in priority can send some “over the edge” and all practitioners have the scars to prove it. This article explores the developing general principles and major pitfalls and how to avoid them.