They can ask it, but it will be pointless. Unsecured creditors receiving ALL the money they are owed following the administration of a debtor is almost unheard of. Having received all monies owed, if they tried to pursue SISU for future revenues it would be laughed out. A complete non-starter. ACL need to get over it and move on.
The ACL claim would be something like the £600k quoted in the administrators document plus say 3 years of the remaining lease. They will not be entitled to 42 years at 1.3m. They get compensation in effect for the period it should take to re-let the premises.
Very very unlikely to be successful in challenging that in court if the above is paid in full. Would simply be giving more money to barristers and lawyers
but they pay up and break the lease by liquidating CCFC Ltd. If the premises not used the licence costs would be lower so the amount to pay ACL would be also I suspect.
So somewhere between£800k - £1M.?but they pay up and break the lease by liquidating CCFC Ltd. If the premises not used the licence costs would be lower so the amount to pay ACL would be also I suspect.
Why would it be laughed out? Its a contractual agreement.
Why could they not have just transfered the golden share to holdings and liquidate Ltd in the first place?
The ACL claim would be something like the £600k quoted in the administrators document plus say 3 years of the remaining lease. They will not be entitled to 42 years at 1.3m. They get compensation in effect for the period it should take to re-let the premises.
Very very unlikely to be successful in challenging that in court if the above is paid in full. Would simply be giving more money to barristers and lawyers
The principle you quote is 100% correct in terms of mitigating the claim and works well in practice with standard tenanted properties, however, ACL will never get someone in at 1.2m per annum for the remaining term of the lease. On that basis I think their claim is substantially higher.
but they pay up and break the lease by liquidating CCFC Ltd. If the premises not used the licence costs would be lower so the amount to pay ACL would be also I suspect.
But it wouldn't work like that surely? You can't heap extra penalties on the out-going tenant simply because it is recognised that the landlord would struggle to get another tenant in at the same rate, or indeed another tenant in at all (genuine question because my knowledge on these matters is limited).
Surely though, once in full control, SISU could liquidate Ltd at some future point anyway?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?