The case of SBP 2 S.À.R.L v 2 Southbank Tenant Limited [2025] EWHC 16 (Ch) highlights the importance of careful drafting and robust legal advice when looking to forfeit a lease.

Background

With the Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill having received Royal Assent, Penningtons Manches Cooper’s real estate litigation team sets out below an overview of the restrictions now coming into force.

There are restrictions on the service of statutory demands and winding-up petitions where a debtor company is unable to pay sums claimed due to coronavirus, which are due to expire on 31 March 2022.

With the Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill (the Bill) now in its final stages, Penningtons Manches Cooper’s real estate litigation team sets out below an overview of the new restrictions that will come into force when the Bill is given Royal Assent.

Current restrictions

It may first be beneficial to review the current moratorium that is in place. The majority of these restrictions expire on 25 March 2022 and the insolvency restrictions expire on 31 March 2022 but, until those dates, the following apply:

Not only was 4 May Star Wars Day this year, it was also the day The Debt Respite Scheme (Breathing Space Moratorium and Mental Health Crisis Moratorium) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020 (referred to in this article as the ‘debt respite regulations’) came into force.

The economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic will leave in its wake a significant increase in commercial chapter 11 filings. Many of these cases will feature extensive litigation involving breach of contract claims, business interruption insurance disputes, and common law causes of action based on novel interpretations of long-standing legal doctrines such as force majeure.

In a highly anticipated decision issued last Thursday (on December 19, 2019), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held in In re Millennium Lab Holdings II, LLC that a bankruptcy court may constitutionally confirm a chapter 11 plan of reorganization that contains nonconsensual third-party releases. The court considered whether, pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462 (2011), Article III of the United States Constitution prohibits a bankruptcy court from granting such releases.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali recently ruled in the Chapter 11 case of Pacific Gas & Electric (“PG&E”) that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) has no jurisdiction to interfere with the ability of a bankrupt power utility company to reject power purchase agreements (“PPAs”).

The Supreme Court this week resolved a long-standing open issue regarding the treatment of trademark license rights in bankruptcy proceedings. The Court ruled in favor of Mission Products, a licensee under a trademark license agreement that had been rejected in the chapter 11 case of Tempnology, the debtor-licensor, determining that the rejection constituted a breach of the agreement but did not rescind it.

Few issues in bankruptcy create as much contention as disputes regarding the right of setoff. This was recently highlighted by a decision in the chapter 11 case of Orexigen Therapeutics in the District of Delaware.

The judicial power of the United States is vested in courts created under Article III of the Constitution. However, Congress created the current bankruptcy court system over 40 years ago pursuant to Article I of the Constitution rather than under Article III.