There are many enforcement options available to commercial landlords in England & Wales, to recover rent arrears due under a lease from a business tenant. Some of those options are based in contract and governed by the terms of the individual lease itself, such as a power to forfeit or damages for breach, whilst some of those options are based in statute such as the Commercial Rent Arrears Recovery regime.

When an individual or company purchases property in England or Wales, the legal title will transfer once the purchaser is listed as the registered proprietor at the Land Registry. However, what happens when, pending the registration of the legal interest, the seller company (who is still the registered proprietor) is dissolved? This is a risk seldom contemplated when purchasing property, but can have important consequences for the title of the property.

This question had until recent times been a conundrum of modern fixed charge receiverships (as well as receivers appointed under the Law of Property Act 1925), because in the scenario of the receiver seeking to step in and deal with property, the receiver is also said to be the borrower's deemed agent. It therefore begged a thorny question of the receiver, about how to reconcile being on both sides of the possession action.

There are significant differences in the procedures available to lenders north and south of the border when it comes to enforcing fixed charges or standard securities over real/heritable property. In this blog, we will compare the process in England & Wales ("E&W") of appointing a fixed charge or "LPA" receiver with the Scottish calling-up procedure

England & Wales: LPA receivers

Challenging a Tenant CVA

Company Voluntary Agreements ("CVAs") have been the go-to option for struggling retail businesses over the pandemic period. While all creditors are generally treated equally under a CVA, landlords are increasingly finding themselves at the short end where they are the only, or one of, a very small pool of, creditors taking a hit. It is now more important than ever that a landlord knows the circumstances by which they can challenge a tenant's CVA.

The Supreme Court in Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd [2020] UKSC 31 has brought much needed clarity to the legal basis and scope of the so-called ‘reflective loss’ principle. The effect of the decision is a ‘bright line’ rule that bars claims by shareholders for loss in value of their shares arising as a consequence of the company having suffered loss, in respect of which the company has a cause of action against the same wrong-doer.

A recent decision of the High Court of New Zealand provides helpful guidance for insolvency practitioners on how aspects of the voluntary administration regime should operate in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

On 30 March 2020, the board of directors of EncoreFX (NZ) Limited resolved to appoint administrators to the company. By then, New Zealand was already at Level 4 on the four-level alert system for COVID-19.

The UK Court of Appeal has held that legal privilege outlasts the dissolution of a company in Addlesee v Dentons Europe LLP [2019] EWCA Civ 1600.

Legal advice privilege applies to communications between a client and its lawyers. The general rule is that those communications cannot be disclosed to third parties unless and until the client waives the privilege.

The High Court in DHC Assets Ltd v Arnerich [2019] NZHC 1695 recently considered an application under s 301 of the Companies Act (the Act) seeking to recover $1,088,156 against the former director of a liquidated company (Vaco). The plaintiff had a construction contract with Vaco and said it had not been paid for all the work it performed under that contract.

Regan v Brougham [2019] NZCA 401 clarifies what is needed to establish a valid guarantee.

A Term Loan Agreement was entered into whereby Christine Regan and Mark Tuffin lent $50,000 to B & R Enterprises Ltd. Rachael Dey and Bryce Brougham were named as Guarantors. Bryce Brougham was the only guarantor to sign the agreement. The Company was put into liquidation and a demand made against the Guarantor.

The guarantor argued that the guarantee was not enforceable based on the following: