Case study: One Blackfriars Limited (In Liquidation)
This is an informative and positive judgment for administrators selling high-value property in distressed and complex scenarios. In summary, the judgment: (i) dissects the duties of administrators in such scenarios; (ii) examines in detail their relationship with professional property agents; and (iii) charts a course for discharging their duties and ensuring that marketing and sales processes are fit for purpose.
The applicants were appointed as joint liquidators (“JLs”) of One Blackfriars Limited (“the Company”) on 30 March 2016. The respondents were the former administrators (“FAs”) of the Company and were appointed on 14 October 2010 by a syndicate of banks (“The Syndicate”). The Syndicate had provided the Company with a facility to refinance a loan, which the Company had used to purchase a plot of land (“the Site”). After the Company had defaulted on its obligations under the facility, the Site was marketed on behalf of the FAs and sold in December 2011.
Issues in dispute
In this case, amongst other things, the JLs alleged that the Site was sold at an undervalue. More specifically, the JLs’ alleged:
- the FAs failed to act independently and in accordance with their duties;
- the FAs failed to properly assess the value of the Site, in particular its planning potential; and
- the FAs failed to market the Site and sold it at an undervalue.
The FAs denied any breach of duty and / or that the sale was at an undervalue. Their case was that at the time the Company entered administration, the development scheme was no longer financially viable and so it was reasonable to decide to sell the Site in the interests of the creditors as a whole. They argued that they took appropriate advice in respect of planning (and relied upon that advice), that the Site was marketed properly and that the bidding process was properly carried out. The FAs’ case was that, having followed that process, the Site was sold at its then market value.
The JLs’ claims were rejected in their entirety.
Deputy High Court Judge John Kimbell QC found that the FAs had complied fully with their duties throughout the course of the administration. Specifically:
- The FA’s had no reason to doubt the competence of their property agents at any stage. As such, they were entitled to rely upon the advice received as to how to market the Site and their agents appeared entirely competent to do so.
- The FA’s appropriately took and gave proper consideration to the advice they received on planning, marketing and sales matters from their property agents.
- On the facts of the case and relying upon advice from their agents, it was reasonable for the FAs to decide not to pursue an amended planning permission for a particular reconfiguration of the Site themselves, but instead to leave it to interested purchasers to decide, with the benefit of their own expert advisors:
a) what extra value might be generated from an amendment to planning permission based on their intended reconfiguration; and
b) what the chances of obtaining that planning permission would be.
- It was reasonable in all the circumstances for the FAs to decide not to obtain an independent valuation of the Site (the retained agents had previously advised the Syndicate), but instead to allow a properly conducted marketing and bidding process to determine the Site’s value. Any valuation is necessarily hypothetical and extremely sensitive to a large number of potential assumptions. By contrast, exposing an asset to market is a more direct and definitive way to ascertain its actual value.
- The Site had been appropriately marketed. Neither the FAs or their agents “re-educated the market down” to the level of the Company’s debt to the Syndicate or otherwise. The FAs reasonably decided to give preferences to an unconditional sale of the Site without overage provisions but the FAs did not preclude bidders from making conditional offers.
- The bidding process was appropriately conducted. There was no reason for the FAs to abandon it at any stage. The FAs’ agents took time to consider all the available options and advised the FAs as to the advantages and disadvantages of each option, eventually advising that the FAs accept the purchaser’s offer.
- The FAs took reasonable steps to obtain the best price reasonably obtainable for the Site in the circumstances as they appeared to be. The price obtained for the Site was its then market price.
- It was reasonable in the circumstances to allow a properly conducted marketing and bidding process to determine the Site’s value (without obtaining multiple valuations). Any valuation is necessarily hypothetical and extremely sensitive to a large number of potential inputs and assumptions.
The judgment is fact-specific but reaffirms that administrators cannot be liable in negligence if they reasonably rely upon advice from their professional agents who appear to be competent. Merely following advice is not a defence and underlines the need for active interrogation of (i) the choice of professional agents; and (ii) the advice received to assess whether it is reasonable to rely upon the advice.
In relation to the question of undervalue, the Judge made a cautionary observation to potential claimants. The Judge commented that the value subsequently attributed to the Site by the purchaser in its own financial accounts, following its successful application for planning permission, might suggest that the purchaser obtained a bargain. However, the Judge stated that there was no better evidence of the Site’s market value on the day of sale than the price that was achieved following what was found to be a properly conducted free and open marketing and sale process. The fact that no other party outbid the purchaser or was able to rescue the Company suggested that if the purchaser did obtain a bargain, it was because it could see something which no one else with the resources necessary to develop the Site could.
Powering Real Estate
Is it plausible to meet the governments ambitious plan to get new houses off the gas grid by 2025? Watch our webinar here
Property Patter: “Holiday” listening for surveyors: what (non-COVID) news is there so far in 2021?
Here we discuss “business as usual” judgments which have been handed down so far this year.
Andrew Keeley writes for Construction News on the Supreme Court's decision in Triple Point Technology, Inc v PTT Public Company Ltd
The Supreme Court recently delivered its highly anticipated judgement in Triple Point Technology, Inc v PTT Public Company Ltd.
Pandemic Clauses: sharing (risk) is not (necessarily) caring
A County Court decision has refused to include a clause in a renewal lease to reduce the rent by 50% in the event of future lockdowns
Service charge demands: a reminder of key principles
What are the key principles, implications and key takeaways?
Steven Carey quoted by Construction Law on the risk of an increase in disputes over the materials shortage in the construction sector
Shortages of materials will likely lead to an increase in disputes as projects suffer ensuing disruption.
Record success for Charles Russell Speechlys’ Private Wealth practice in Chambers HNW 2021 directory
We are delighted to have once again been recognised as a leader in our field in the Chambers High Net Worth 2021 Guide.
Finance Bill 21/22: the implications for corporate taxpayers
The Finance Bill 2021-2022 was published yesterday. What impact will this have on corporate tax payers?
Barclay v Barclay: A Stark Reminder for Badly Behaved High-Profile Litigants
David considers the Barclay v Barclay case and if the judgment should be published, given it's severe criticism of Lord Barclay's conduct
Property Patter: dealing with COVID-19 arrears and the future of commercial tenancy relationships
What are the government’s plans for dealing with pandemic arrears and commercial tenancy relationships?
Emma Preece writes for Property Week on complying with vacant possession conditions
The Court of Appeal recently grappled with the issue of vacant possession in Capitol Park Leeds Plc v Global Radio Services.
Charles Russell Speechlys advises Duke Royalty on royalty financing agreement with Fairmed Healthcare AG
Duke Royalty is the leading provider of royalty finance to companies in the UK and Europe.
Jennifer Berritt and Lauren Kelly write for P3 Pharmacy on The Lease Code and looking for better lease terms
The Lease Code published by The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors took effect on 1 September 2020.
Charles Russell Speechlys shortlisted for Best EIS/SEIS Legal/Regulatory Adviser at 2021 EISA Awards
The Awards denote excellence and recognise the achievements of EIS/SEIS practitioners over the past year.
COVID-19 Vaccination – can an employer make it compulsory for employees?
We review what legal issues to take into account when considering to make vaccination compulsory as an employer.
Charles Russell Speechlys advises on the sale of No.1 Lounges Ltd to SwissportALD
SwissportALD will run nine No.1 Lounge properties at the UK’s London Heathrow, London Gatwick, and Birmingham airports.
Property Patter: The Electronic Communications Code – what are the current issues with negotiating telecoms agreements?
We discuss some of the practical issues arising out of the Electronic Communications Code.
Joseph Green writes for Property Week on whether special-purpose vehicle leases can be used to avoid empty rates
A recent Supreme Court judgment clarified where the burden of paying empty rates should lie.
Chris Hadnutt writes for Building on whether liquidated damages clauses survive termination of contract
Chris Hadnutt considers whether liquidated damages clauses survive termination of contract.
Emma Preece quoted by Estate Gazette on the implications of the Court of Appeal's decision in Capitol Park Leeds v Global Radio Services
The Court of Appeal backed tenants in an unusual case about the condition in which tenants are obliged to return premises to landlords.