Given the current pressure all businesses face dealing with the effect of Covid-19, it is important that directors understand what their duties are in respect of insolvent companies or companies that are at risk of heading towards insolvency.

In this blog we briefly remind directors what their duties are, the potential claims that could be brought against them in the event of insolvency and how they might arise. To mitigate against these risks it is critically important that directors:

In this three part blog we highlight three recent court decisions concerning landlord rights and insolvency, which provide cautionary warnings and surprising twists. The questions we consider are:

1. Does a company voluntary arrangement (“CVA”) permanently vary the terms of a lease?
2. Can a landlord be forced to accept a surrender of a lease?
3. What are the consequences of taking money from a rent deposit if the tenant company is in administration?

In part 1 we consider the first question.

The hair salon Regis announced recently that the company has entered administration. The news might not come as a surprise because the chain, prior to the company’s administration, was subject to a company voluntary arrangement (“CVA”) whose validity was challenged by landlords.

The joint administrator of Regis commented: “trading challenges, coupled with the uncertainty caused by the legal challenge, have necessitated the need for an administration appointment”.

Can a CVA bind a landlord in respect of future rents? Is the landlord a creditor in respect of future rent? What about the right to forfeit; can a CVA modify that right? Is compromising rent under a CVA automatically unfair to landlords when other trade creditors are paid in full?

These were some of the points considered by the Court in determining whether the Debenhams’ CVA (which had been challenged by landlords) should fail.

One point of particular interest is whether reducing rents below market value in a CVA is automatically unfair to landlords?

There has been an influx of company voluntary arrangements (“CVAs”) in recent times, as retailers fight to rescue their UK high street stores. Retail CVAs accounts for the highest proportion of CVAs at 19%. As more and more CVAs are approved, we consider some of the recent trends seen in the retail sector which showcase the flexibility of a CVA and reflect the demands of landlords whose support is vital to the continuing viability of a business.

What is a CVA?

The proposal to reinstate Crown preference in insolvency has met resistance from all angles; the insolvency profession, turnaround experts, accountants, lawyers and funders. But despite HMRC’s bold statement in its consultation paper that the re-introduction of Crown preference will have little impact on funders, it is clear following a discussion with lenders that it may well have a far wider impact on existing and new business, business rescue and the economy in general than HMRC believes.

With the gradual opening of energy supply markets allowing new energy providers to challenge the established providers and bring increased competition to the market, the last two decades have seen an increase in smaller energy providers entering the market and sharing a growing customer base. But what happens to the customers when an energy provider becomes insolvent?

The case of Davey v Money and Anor (2018) EWHC 766 (Ch) should serve as a gentle warning to secured creditors to be aware of the level of their involvement in the administration of a customer.

Background

Angel House Development Limited (“AHDL“), a property development company, borrowed £16 million from Dunbar Assets Plc (“Dunbar“) in order to fund the purchase and redevelopment of a property, Angel House, in Tower Hamlets. Dunbar took security for the loan(s) in the form of a debenture.

HM Revenue & Customs (“HMRC”) has issued a consultation entitled “Tax Abuse and Insolvency: A Discussion Document” on how it proposes to confront those who misuse insolvency law as a means of avoiding or evading their tax liabilities.

上周，曾在新加坡证券交易所有限公司（“新交所”）上市的Otto Marine有限公司（以下简称“Otto Marine”）提出申请将公司提交司法托管（“司法托管申请”）并请求任命临时司法管理人。

该公司系总部为新加坡的Otto Marine集团的核心成员，Otto Marine集团拥有约70家子公司，联营公司和间接子公司，在全球拥有622名员工。 Otto Marine集团从事投资控股，船舶建造，维修和服务，船舶租赁和租赁以及离岸服务业务。 Otto Marine的独任董事暨实际股东是马来西亚大亨拿督斯里丘志肖。

司法托管申请发生于2015年约1.83亿美元的亏损以及2016年10月自新加坡证券交易所自愿退市之后。根据该公司截至2017年12月31日的管理账目初稿，本财政年度累计录得亏损约8100万美元。 在支持司法托管申请的法院文件中，该公司估计总负债约为8.77亿美元，并宣称自己无力偿还债务，并援引大华银行提交的清盘申请和各种未决执行申请等事宜。

根据法庭文件，拿督斯里丘志肖本人似乎是该公司最大的单一债权人，其本人或其附属公司享有2.08亿美元债权。