BPF's "Taking the Profit" - extracting maximum value

The British Property Federation (BPF) is an organisation which represents Landlords.  Therefore it is an organisation which is important to me because it is important to my clients.  It recently launched its "Taking the Profit" campaign.  The target of that campaign is the use of administration particularly in the retail sector as a route to turning a distressed business into a more profitable one with the result that landlords either face shop closures or reduced rental income.  I made one prediction in my blog on New Year's Day and this fight was it.  Thank you to the BPF.
As frequent readers of my blog will know, I have much to say on the insolvency regimes and have blogged many times on the issues facing landlords arising out of administrations and other insolvency regimes as well as the impact of recent case law.  It is good to see the BPF seeking to tackle the issues head on and I cannot argue with the first points the BPF makes that the government has failed to act on tightening up pre-packs and making it easier to complain against Insolvency Practitioners.
However, whilst the BPF is to be praised for raising potential abuse of the insolvency regimes for the benefit of shareholders at the cost of creditors (and particularly landlord creditors) I think that in highlighting certain areas which are, perhaps, most headline grabbing some important areas for review have not received similar attention.  Some of the publicity around this campaign suggests that landlords are the unwitting, weak and undefended party in a war which is being waged against them by a united force of IPs and private investors.  Quite simply, in my experience, this is not the case.  Now it may be that my experience (which I admit is largely at the 'better' end of the retail property market (by better I mean primary and secondary) and involves dealing with the likes of KPMG, PWC, E&Y, BDO, Grant Thornton and others) largely misses out the activities at the tertiary end of the market and perhaps practices at that end are a little more shady.  However, my suspicion is that some landlord practices at that end of the market are not quite 'code compliant'.  Further by failing to identify the real reasons why the current regime unfairly prejudices landlords over and above other creditors risks losing the war.
The bad arguments
1.  It is largely pre-pack administrations where landlords are leant on to agree concessions
This is not the case. A pre-pack is when a deal is agreed and documented (but not signed) before the appointment of administrators.  Some of the administrations where landlords have been pressured to give rent concessions have been pre-packs.  However, most high profile administrations have not been pre-packs yet rent concessions have been sought by the new buyer.  Therefore, the BPF is, in fact and rightly, targeting administrations and not just pre-packs with this campaign.
2.  Administrations are effectively being used to transfer funds from pensioners who have invested in property funds and property companies to private investors buying businesses from administrators and then seeking rent concessions or threatening to close down
Using pensioners in any argument seems to be 'de rigueur' at present.  I think care needs to be exercised in utilising this argument.  Apart from anything else when it comes to unprofitable sites there are arguments that the landlord community carries some of the blame:

• in good times landlords happily agree high rents fully in the knowledge that if trading conditions deteriorate that rent may break the business
• the UK leasing model with relatively long lease lengths, upwards only reviews and full repairing and insuring provisions, whilst providing secure income in the sense of no costs, means that rising service charges add to the burden on tenants increasing the risk of insolvency
• the use of quarterly rents creates cash flow issues for tenants and also creates greater risk for landlords in the light of recent case law
• whilst some landlords have been sympathetic to struggling tenants many others have taken an aggressive route refusing to consider any concessions accusing the tenants of trying to make them pay for a bad business

3.  Landlords are being forced to agree rent reductions
No one is being forced to do anything.  Landlords may not like the threatening manner in which some agents and/or buyers act; saying that unless the rent is reduced a unit will be closed down.  But, at the end of the day, the landlord can call their bluff and refuse to agree the concession.  Landlords are not above being threatening either.  I had one case where a landlord (not institutional) unlawfully re-entered a property through the use of, what can only be described as, thugs because he did not like the possibility of a CVA.  That is far more serious than aggressive posturing in a negotiation.
Landlords are big boys and just as able to use an aggressive negotiating stance.  As advised in a recent blog landlords have quite a good negotiating position albeit limited by the commercial realities affecting each individual property.  In reality landlords are often paying for the fact that they own a property which is not in a prime location and which can no longer command rents at the level originally agreed.  If they could get a better rent then they should refuse the rent concession and get possession.  That is called risk and, without wishing to teach grandmothers how to suck eggs, that risk should have been reflected in the yield when the property was acquired.

The other side of the coin

The BPF is absolutely right to put the issue of administrations on the public agenda.  I think it is important to recognise that there are issues with the system which impact (possibly unfairly) on landlords which should be at the forefront of the campaign:

• the current legal position on payment of rents (especially in the light of the decision in the recent case of the Leisure (Norwich) II Ltd & Others -v- Luminar Lava Ignite Ltd (in administration) & others [2012] EWHC 951 (Ch) gives freedom to tenants not to pay rent and for administrators to trade rent free until the next quarter day.  The Game administration is the biggest example of this.  This flies in the face of the "pay for what you use" approach to insolvency situations and is unique to leases due to a clash between real estate law and insolvency law.
• the moratorium preventing forfeiture without consent - with all other contracts the provider can effectively terminate the contract on insolvency and there is nothing to stop them from doing it.  However termination of the lease can only occur by use of forfeiture which is a form of proceedings.  Due to the moratorium such action requires court approval (or administrator consent).  This exposes the landlord to greater potential future loss than other creditors who, whilst they might lose out on arrears, are not exposed to further losses unless they choose to contract with the administrators or the new business

In my view these are the mischiefs which the BPF should be seeking to undo.  Whilst anti-private equity and pro-pensioner arguments attract good press the reality is that they do not properly encapsulate the issues with a system which, whilst not completely broken, is not working in perfect harmony either.

All that glitters is not Goldacre

In January 2010 I blogged on a very recent decision called Goldacre (Offices) Limited -v- Nortel Networks UK Limited (in administration) [2009] EWHC 3389 (Ch.).  In November of the same year I picked up on a Scottish case (Cheshire West and Chester Borough Council -v- Springfield Retail Limited (in administration)) in which the decision in Goldacre was applied and certain parts clarified.
Landlords were very happy with Goldacre.  The principle meant that administrators could no longer calculate rent on a daily basis but rather had to pay for the full quarter.  However, as I highlighted the decision in Goldacre did create a level of uncertainty.  Most importantly it left open the possibility that where an administrator is appointed after a rent payment date and then rent has not been paid that the outstanding rent will be an unsecured claim.
A question answered
That question is unclear no longer.  In the High Court decision handed down by His Honour Judge Pelling QC (oral judgment only) it was decided that where a company goes into administration any unpaid rent which fell due before the appointment of the administrators will be an unsecured claim against the company and not an administration expense.
Whereas after Goldacre landlords were jumping for joy many are now holding their head in their hands and here is why.  On 26 March 2012 that behemoth of retailers, Game, entered into administration.  Whilst I do not know for certain I would countenance that any lease where the rent fell due on 25 March (the March Quarter Day) did not get the rent paid prior to the administration.  Those landlords now have no chance of receiving any payment for the quarter from 25 March to 23 June whilst at the same time they cannot recover possession of the property due to the moratorium.  Going to court is not attractive as it will now require the Court of Appeal to rule on the matter which means losing at first instance just for the pleasure of some time in front of our learned Law Lords.
A bit of history
In truth the whole episode is a rather sorry tale of a silly issue resulting in unhelpful law.  Goldacre was not really about when the liability to pay rent arose.  Rather it was about whether administrators should have to pay the full rent when they were only utilising a part of the let property.  Up until Goldacre both administrators and landlords operated on the principle that you pay for what you use (i.e. for each day you use the premises the administrators must pay).  This is a recognised principle in insolvency law.
The problem is that this principle crashes head-on with the law in relation to rent that rent payable in advance cannot be apportioned (rent in arrears can thanks to the Apportionment Act 1870 - interestingly a piece of legislation enacted for the benefit of landlords who previously could not recover rent arrears having forfeited a lease where rent was payable in arrears).
In effect the court has decided that the non-apportionment principle cannot be overriden by the pay-what-you-use principle and so we land up with a position which neither landlord nor administrator actually want.
Landlords lose out on rent for the quarter in which the administrators are appointed.  Administrators risk having to pay for a full quarter whilst only utilising the property for a small part of it.
So who has the upper hand now?
Almost certainly administrators acting for tenants do.  There is little doubt that where a company is on quarterly rents payable in advance on the usual quarter days that it can provide the administrators with significant breathing space if any appointment is done immediately after a quarter day having not paid that quarter's rent.  The administrators can trade rent free for a quarter.  There is little doubt that the two decisions effectively invite companies to do this and, frankly, they would be silly not to avail of the opportunity.
However, in a lot of cases struggling companies approach their landlords much earlier when in difficulty to seek either rent concessions or changes to rent payment dates.  Many landlords will simply reject such requests or agree to move to, say, monthly rents or staggered payment arrangements to assist with cash flow.  However, landlords would be well advised to use any such approaches as an opportunity to change the balance in their favour.  The law is all about when liability to pay arises and if you can change when the liability arises you can avoid suffering unnecessarily when the tenant ultimately goes into administration.

Blacks and La Senza: Aggression vs Seduction?

Yesterday saw the first of what will most likely be a wave of pre-pack administrations of high street names when both Blacks Leisure and La Senza went into administration and immediately thereafter their businesses (or at least the profitable parts of it) were sold to willing buyers.  Pre-pack administrations have come in for a lot of criticism on the basis that they often, if not always, return no value to unsecured creditors or shareholders.  However, they have their merits and, in a lot of cases, genuinely achieve the best result possible overall for stakeholders.  Therefore, much to the dismay of some readers, I am not about to launch into vitriolic criticism of the use of pre-packs to save jobs and businesses with unsecureds being left high and dry.
There is, however, one common thread of both the La Senza and Blacks pre-packs which are worth highlighting and, as a landlord, preparing for: lease renegotiations.  In the case of Blacks, the official press release from JD Sports Fashions stated:

"Following the elimination of any underperforming stores and other cost reduction initiatives we believe the business can be run successfully as independent fascias within the Group."

With La Senza, less than half the retail sites leased by the group were bought out of administration with the majority of sites closing down so, it is likely, only the performing stores were part of the original deal.  However bearing in mind the official press release which stated:

"Today’s announcement represents a first step in a long-term commitment to developing the La Senza UK business, which we believe has great potential."

it seems likely that 'new' sites are on the cards.
My prediction is that in both cases landlords will be approached by the new owners to renegotiate lease terms.  What we have is a difference in approach from the new owners; one is seeking to pressure landlords whilst the other is seeking to seduce them.
In the case of Blacks the new owners have probably taken a licence to occupy all the sites and will now meet with the landlords of "underperforming sites" to seek to renegotiate the leases.  This will be the stick or 'Aggression' based approach; if the landlord does not agree the terms the site will be closed and the landlord left with the void costs, which would include empty rates liability, service charge irrecoverability and an unoccupied site which quickly becomes unattractive.
In the case of La Senza whilst landlords of transferring sites might be approached, bearing in mind the number of up front closures, I anticipate that the new owners will approach landlords of some of the closed sites and propose new terms under which they would be willing to re-open.  This is more of a 'carrot' or 'Seduction' based approach offering to relieve landlords of the void exposure.
As a landlord it is important that you are aware of what your negotiating position is in respect of any approaches.  It is worth keeping the following in mind (and get detailed legal advice in respect of them where relevant):

• an administrator has no right to disclaim or unilaterally surrender a lease or otherwise bring a lease to an end earlier than a solvent tenant (only a liquidator has that power).  Therefore rates liability in particular should not fall on a landlord simply because of the tenant going into administration although ultimately liquidation is likely).
• if the property is still being used (and this is particularly important in the case of Blacks) then the lease liabilities arising are likely to be an expense of the administration.
• due to the decision in Goldacre expect there to be significant pressure to get deals done before rent payment dates as administrators in particular will wish to ensure that they can avoid any risk of the next period's rent being payable as an expense in whole.  My view is that a challenge to Goldacre or an attempt to extend it is very likely this year.
• pre-conditions or requirements set out in the lease as things which the landlord can rely on in terms of refusing consent to an assignment apply to an assignment by a company in administration just as much as they do in non-insolvency positions.  Obviously a balance is to be achieved but if you really do not want to consent to an assignment or the proposed terms don't think you will have no choice in the matter.
• the courts will not be quick to grant consent to forfeiture.  In our experience to date courts have given administrators quite a long time to try and assign a lease so even where the proposed assignee cannot meet lease pre-conditions do not assume the courts will be on your side.

La Senza and Blacks might be the first major retailers of 2012 to go to the wall but, if the reports are to be believed, they certainly will not be the last.  Whether buyers of such portfolios use might or seduction methods to seek new lease terms we can only speculate but what La Senza and Blacks show is both approaches are being considered and pursued.  Either way, make sure you use protection!

Retail 2012 – a showdown between administrators and landlords?

A very experienced insolvency practitioner who has acted as administrator on some of the most high profile insolvencies of well known British retailers recently mentioned to a colleague that:

“The main problem facing retailers today is that rents are too high.  Landlords will need to accept that if they want their businesses to survive they will need to reduce significantly the rents payable.”

There is undoubtedly truth in what this IP says; if landlords reduced rents then margins would increase and/or retailers could reduce prices to make their goods more attractive to you and me.  There we go then; in one foul swoop we can fix the problems of the high street, make British retailers more profitable thus increasing tax revenues for Her Majesty and, as Gordon Brown once said “save the world” .
There is just one small problem with this hypothesis; in reality it is nothing more than window dressing.  Put another way, what is being suggested is in effect seeking to simply alter a different variable in a rather complicated equation where ultimately the same final answer always applies:

TRS = RP + BI + LP + BI;

where

TRS = Total Retail Spending;
RP = Retailer's Profit;
BI = Bank Interest; and
LP = Landlord’s Profit.

This is obviously an oversimplification of where the money spent on the high street actually goes but it is sufficient to highlight that by reducing rent what in effect happens is that LP decreases so that RP increases.
This equation also highlights another important factor; that of Bank Interest.  This affects both retailers and landlords alike and once again highlights that in reality the real issue which is damaging the High Street is debt.
In fact the one common factor affecting all three contributors to the equation (retailers, landlords and, just as importantly, the consumer) is debt.  Therefore the IP quoted above could have been more accurate if he had stated that the main problem facing retailers today is that there is too much debt in the economy.  So why not say this?
A number of answers spring to mind (in increasing accuracy):

1. IPs are generally appointed at the behest of the banks.  It would hardly be sensible for IPs to bite the hand that feeds them.
2. Banks have already taken significant hits so is it realistic to expect them to take further hits?
3. Landlords rely on tenants.  If tenants cannot pay the rent then landlords will ultimately lose out.  High rents can only be justified if there is a willing tenant.

I believe that the IP quoted was expressing the view that the average level of rents on the high street is so high that it is not reflective of the economic realities in which we live and were we to test the market then the average rent would fall significantly.
He is right but averages are misleading.  In reality there are a lot (easily the majority if not the vast majority) of retail sites where the rent is too high and should be cut.  However, there are a lot of sites where the rents could go higher as the landlord could easily re-let the property to another retailer if it became available.  Bond Street is an example but so are certain locations on Oxford Street or in major shopping centres such as Westfield London or Bluewater in Kent.
A recent review of the high street predicted a significant increase in the number of retail insolvencies in 2012.  The prediction is that those retailers with 50-500 stores will be worst hit.  What this is likely to mean is that CVAs which had been utilised a lot in 2007 and 2008 to save a number of retailers (or at least delay their demise by a year or two) is less likely to be successful.  If the IP is right in order to survive these retailers will need to do more than simply close sites; they will need to reduce the rents on a significant number of sites that are to remain open.  This is yet to be achieved through a CVA and the most well-known attempt at such a large scale CVA routed rent reduction (Stylo in 2008) was a total failure.
Therefore we are more likely to see a significant increase in administrations (as we have already in the last few weeks).  The courts to date have provided a significant amount of leeway to administrators by protecting them against claims for forfeiture by landlords even where landlords have been able to show they have alternative tenants to the administrators’ preferred assignee.  However landlords have seen some successes; most notably in the case of Goldacre (Offices) Limited v Nortel Networks (UK) Limited.  Yet even this decision is now being turned by administrators to their advantage with a refusal to pay any rent for the quarter during which they are appointed on the basis that they are appointed after the quarter day.
My prediction for 2012 is that we will see this issue and many other similar issues relating to the rights and obligations of administrators to make use of premises litigated through the courts.  So 2012 may prove bad for the high street but it is likely to provide ripe pickings for the IPs, real estate insolvency lawyers (like me I must admit) and real estate litigators.  Every cloud must have a silver lining; at least for some of us.

McGoldacre: A Scottish lilt on rent and admin expenses

In January 2010 I posted a blog on the decision in Goldacre (Offices) Limited -v- Nortel Networks UK Limited (in administration) in which the High Court ruled that where an administrator uses a leasehold property for the benefit of the administration on a rent payment day then the whole quarter's rent is payable as an expense of the administration.
Now a court in Scotland has produced a carbon copy in slightly different circumstances. In its decision in Cheshire West and Chester Borough Council -v- Springfield Retail Limited (in administration) the in the Outer House of the Court of Session Lord Menzies held that the fact that the person in actual occupation was neither the administrator nor the company in administration but rather a licensee of the company in administration, was not relevant and that since the licensee had been let into occupation by the administrator as part of a sale of the business then the rent was due as an expense.
Frankly the decision does not come as a surprise. It would be strange if the court had held that administrators could allow a third party into occupation of a leasehold property and that in doing so they would not be liable for the rent as an expense. To do so would create a significant arbitrage opportunity whereby third party licensees could run businesses out of leasehold property of companies in administration where the landlord had no contractual right to rent from the licensee and only an unsecured claim against an insolvent company.
Therefore, in reality the case tells us nothing new and does not answer a number of fundamental questions which the decision in Goldacre raise including:

1. If the administrator goes into occupation the day after a rent payment day will none of that period's rent be payable as an expense?
2. Are dilapidations arising during the period of administration an expense of the administration?
3. If there is a sub-tenant in occupation who carries the credit risk of that sub-tenant defaulting? Does it affect the analysis if the company in administration does not continue to use the remainder of the premises?