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:
- Does a company voluntary arrangement (“CVA”) permanently vary the terms of a lease?
- Can a landlord be forced to accept a surrender of a lease?
- 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 Supreme Court’s recent decision in Mission Product Holdings, Inc., v. Tempnology, LLC clarifies that a debtor-licensor’s rejection of a trademark license under § 365(a) of the Bankruptcy Code is treated as a breach, and not as a rescission, of that license under § 365(g). The Court held that if a licensee’s right to use the trademark would survive a breach outside of bankruptcy, that same right survives a rejection in bankruptcy.
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?
On January 17, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (the “FifthCircuit”) issued a decision in In re Ultra Petroleum Corp. that could have significant implications for creditors seeking payment of contractual make-whole amounts and post-petition interest from chapter 11 debtors.[1]
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.
On June 27, 2018, Judge Kevin Carey of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware ruled that a dismissal order in a bankruptcy case could provide for exculpation of the estate fiduciaries and their respective professionals. The ruling is a welcome result for all estate fiduciaries whose tireless efforts during a complex bankruptcy case fail to culminate in an approved plan of reorganization. Morrison & Foerster LLP represents the debtors in the matter.
Background