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.

Judgment in the Court of Appeal case of Pillar Denton v Game Retail- about rent due during the administration of Game was handed down yesterday. It is a landmark ruling for administrators, on the thorny issue of the payment of rent during the period of the tenant’s administration.

The Court of Appeal has handed down an important judgment for landlords and insolvency practitioners, in the case of Jervis v Pillar Denton; re Games Station (“Game”).

The Court of Appeal has changed the law relating to the liability of administrators and liquidators to pay rent as an expense of the administration or liquidation.

The Court of Appeal in Pillar Denton Ltd & Others v (1) Jervis (2) Maddison and (3) Game Retail Ltd ([2014] EWCA Civ 180) yesterday overruled previous High Court authority, deciding that rent should be treated as an expense of the administration based on actual usage and not on when the rent falls due. What does this mean for practitioners?

The background

Pillar Denton Ltd & others v Jervis & others [2014] EWCA 180 (“Game Station”)

The outcome of this appeal has been awaited with a high degree of interest.  The issue was the extent to which rent should be payable as an expense of an administration or liquidation; if it is payable as an expense, it sits near the top of the priority order for the distribution of the tenant’s assets, and will usually be paid in full.  Otherwise, it is among the unsecured debts, and the landlord will have to wait for whatever dividend is ultimately payable.

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