So, a ruling came out in June that we in The Bankruptcy Cave have been dying to blog about (and not just so we can use the blog title above). Forgive the delay – heavy workloads and summer vacations often preclude timely blog posts. But this one is a doozy, better late than never on this blog post.

The absolute priority rule of Section 1129(b) of the Bankruptcy Code is a fundamental creditor protection in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case. In general terms, the rule provides that if a class of unsecured creditors rejects a debtor’s reorganization plan and is not paid in full, junior creditors and equity interestholders may not receive or retain any property under the plan. The rule thus implements the general state-law principle that creditors are entitled to payment before shareholders, unless creditors agree to a different result.

The recent case of In re Tousa, Inc. (Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Tousa, Inc., v. Citicorp North America, Inc., Adv. Pro. No. 08-1435-JKO (Bankr. S.D. Fla., October 13, 2009)) has attracted considerable attention – and dread – in the banking and legal communities.

There remains much economic uncertainty ahead and it seems that insolvency practices are likely to continue to remain important drivers in accountancy firms. However, insolvency practitioners are facing increased regulation and public scrutiny. They need to remain on top of their game to navigate safely through stormy waters, as Ross Goodrich reports.

Background

In the last edition of Real Estate Update, we considered the position of a landlord wishing to keep the lease of premises to a company in administration ongoing and in what circumstances he will receive the full rent (ie 100 pence in the pound). If, however, the tenant is in administration and the landlord would like to bring the lease to an end, he would only be entitled to forfeit the lease if the administrator consents or the court grants an order giving him permission to do so.1

1. Can I lock the tenant out of the property until they pay?

No. If a tenant has been placed in administration then there will be a moratorium in place. This gives a company some breathing space. Rights against the company, such as forfeiture or conducting legal proceedings, can only be pursued with either the consent of the administrator or a court order. As noted last week, changing the locks is likely to forfeit the lease. Unless you intend to forfeit and obtain the necessary permission to do so, you should not change the locks.  

In the current recession landlords are among the fi rst to lose out when a company goes into insolvency, be it a pre-pack sale or a conventional administration process. It is important, therefore, for landlords to know what rights they retain when confronted with the administration of their tenant in order to ensure the full rent is paid - if they are still entitled to it - or, at the very least, to increase their bargaining position. In this article, we look at the circumstances where an administrator is obliged to pay the landlord’s rent in full.

The First Creditor Driven Schemes

The Commercial Court has very recently sanctioned four schemes of arrangement pursuant to section 179A of the BVI Business Companies Act 2004. These were the first two creditor-driven schemes to be proposed and sanctioned in the BVI. There has been one other scheme proposed and sanctioned in the BVI but this was a member’s scheme and was altogether more straightforward. Ogier BVI was instructed in relation to all four schemes.

The First Scheme

In the matter of the representation of Anglo Irish Asset Finance [2010] JRC087

This is the latest decision of the Royal Court in relation to an application by a UK creditor (a bank) for a letter of request to be issued to the English High Court requesting that an administration order be made in respect of a Jersey company.

One week after Aegis Mortgage Corp. filed for chapter 11 in Delaware, a group of former employees filed their complaint seeking class certification over allegations that Aegis Mortgage Corporation, Aegis Wholesale Corporation and Cerberus Capital Management, L.P.—all allegedly acting as their employer—violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act when they failed to give over 400 employees 60 days' notice prior to a mass termination by Aegis Mortgage on August 7, 2007.