PBL 20 How much will we get back?

Er CD, that looks a bit like an UXB.
And can I hear a ticking noise?
...
and if you'll excuse the mixed metaphor,
I've heard of having skin in the game but this appears to be a whole different game
and I don't suppose it's cricket ...
Brian

That relates to an LPA receiver who could have been appointed by Lendy only to sell the property. 

It it does not have anything to do with administrative receivers (as is actually the case here) of the borrower company - any sale proceeds (net of actual sale costs) will go to Lendy and for any shortfall Lendy will become an unsecured creditor of the borrower and in the queue 

No, it doesn't relate to only an LPA receiver only appointed to sell the property, not least because an LPA receiver can do things other than sell a property. I'll retype a bit more of the relevant portions here, in this case from the property charge rather than the other more general charge, but it would be useful to read it all, items within () are my notes largely to cut the typing amount:

"13.4 Power of appointment additional to statutory powers
The power to appoint a Receiver conferred by this deed shall be in addition to all statutory and other powers of the Lender under the Insolvency Act 1986, the LPA 1925 or otherwise, and shall be exercisable without the restrictions contained in sections 103 and 109 of the LPA 1925 or otherwise.
...
14 POWERS OF RECEIVER
14.1 Powers additional to statutory powers
14.1.1 Any receiver appointed by the lender under this deed shall, in addition to the powers conferred on him bby statute, have the powers set out in clause 14.2 to clause 14.20.
14.1.2, 14.1.3 skipped, not particularly relevant

14.2 Repair and develop the property (giving titles only for most, not body text to cut the amount of typing)
A Receiver may undertake or complete any works of repair, alteration, building or development on the Propety and may apply for and maintain any planning permission, development consent, building regulation approval or any other permission, consent or license to carry out any of the same.
14.3 Grant or accept surrenders of leases
14.4, 14.5 not particularly interesting, skipped
14.6 Charge for remuneration (but this doesn't make it secured)
14.7 Realise Charged property (essentially selling related)
14.8 Manage or reconstruct the Borrower's business
A Receiver may carry on, manage, develop, reconstruct, amalgamate or diversify or concur in carrying on, managing, developing, reconstructing, amalgamating or diversifying the business of the Borrower carried out at the Property.
14.9 Dispose of Charged Property
A Receiver may grant optiions and licenses over all or any prt of the Charged property, grant any other interest or right over, sell, assign or lease.... (most not retyped here)
14.10 Sever fixtures and fittings (don't have to sell with the property)
14.11, 14.12, 14.13, 14.14 not particularly interesting
14.15 Powers under LPA 19235
A Receiver may exercise all powers provided for in the LPA 1925 in the same way as if it had been duly appointed under the LPA 1925 and exercise all powers provided for an administrative receiver in Schedule 1 to the insolvency Act 1986.
14.16 Borrow (the receiver is allowed to borrow)
14.17, 14.18 not particularly interesting
14.19 Absolute beneficial owner
A receiver may, in relation to any of the Charged property, exercise all powers, authorisations and rights he would be capable of exercising, and do all those acts and things, as an absolute beneficial owner could exercise or do in the ownership and management of the Charged Property or any part of the Charged property.
14.20 incidental powers"

As you can see the right to appoint Receivers is not limited to only the LPA case and grants additional powers beyond LPA powers. Some of that stuff is made more interesting by knowing that Lendy, the lender, seems to be a  10% owner of the borrower company.

Of course the route chosen for at least the buildings and land seems to be sale, at least mainly, don't know about the leases that apply or applied to parts of the property in addition.

Regrettably the restrictions here to identifying borrowers make it hard to do collaborative discussion in both this sort of examination and in collective due diligence, apparently contributing to some of the disagreements here.

Whatever the legal position with regard to fees there are two practical considerations that have to be taken into account when considering where fees will "rank in the pecking order"

1 No-one is going to act for you for free in realising an asset

2 It is very likely that the Administrators are from a firm recommended by Lendy to the directors and they have a ongoing relationship with Lendy and at least an understanding if not a formal agreement as to fees.  Even if there is not such ongoing relationships and arrangements it is inconceivable that they would not have covered their fees and where it will come from before accepting the appointment.

For both of those reasons it is highly likely that the fees and costs of the Administration will be paid before anything else.

At least one version of planning permission that failed was an application to demolish the garden center buildings and replace them with a two story "log cabin". This appears to be the full planning for extensive redevelopment of the garden center one. However I haven't yet checked the full planning permission records and am to some extent relying on those who have and didn't find relevant full permission in place.

Naturally I'd very much welcome a pointer to a granted planning permission application that meets the extensive redevelopment and increase of the garden center description!

Here is a summary of the relevant Companies House filings for the firm:

4 September 2014 annual return with 3 shares.
21 January 2015 first mention of 100 shares.
4 March 2015 statement of capital with 100 shares but no ownership interests for them mentioned.
4 March 2015 registration of charge, created on 25 February 2015
9 March 2015 registration of charge, created on 25 February 2015
3 September 2015 annual return giving the 10% Lendy, 30% each to the original three founders split.

I don't think that the timings of these events are consistent with the theory, rather they all appear to have happened around the time that the loan was being discussed and made.

You beat me to the correction by a few seconds.

Best to read the original documents filed with Companies House, of course, but I cannot publicly give you the link here or sufficient information to find it without breaking this forum's rules.

MOD HAT ON

Do not post  details of the planning application onto the forum that would identify the borrower.