In the latest High Court decision relating to Company Voluntary Arrangements in the UK, the judge held that the Regis hairdressing group CVA should be revoked on the basis that it favoured shareholders at the expense of landlord creditors

Die weltweite Ausbreitung des Coronavirus sorgt für heftige Turbulenzen im Wirtschaftsleben. Gerät eine GmbH in finanzielle Schieflage, steht besonders die Geschäftsführung unter Druck. Sie kämpft um das wirtschaftliche Überleben der Gesellschaft. Gleichzeitig kommen verschiedene Szenarien für die Haftung des Geschäftsführers in Betracht, wenn dieser keine Krisenprävention durchgeführt hat oder in der Krise nicht die erforderliche Sorgfalt anwendet.

Haftung wegen unzureichender Krisenprävention

The coronavirus pandemic is sending shock waves through the business world. If a GmbH (German limited liability company) finds itself in financial distress, the management in particular will be under pressure and must fight for the survival of the business. At the same time, there are various scenarios in which managing directors could be held liable for not implementing crisis prevention measures or exercising the necessary diligence during the crisis.

Liability for inadequate crisis prevention

Today (19 September), following an expedited trial, the High Court rejected the application brought by affected landlords to challenge the CVA entered into by Debenhams Retail Limited.

The landlord applicants sought to challenge the CVA which closed stores and imposed rent reductions on landlords according to different categories. 'Category 5' landlords took the biggest hit with rents halved and early termination dates imposed. The CVA proposal was approved by Debenhams' creditors on 9 May 2019.

Five grounds were advanced by the landlords during the hearing:

The last two months have seen two key appeals in which the court was required to decide whether the tenant of a particular type of building should enjoy the statutory right to acquire the freehold of a house. This right is enshrined in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.

The properties, and the questions for the court in each case, were quite different. What the judgments had in common was a purposive approach to interpretation of the Act.

It has been understood since the Hindcastle case in 1997 that a guarantor’s payment obligations under a lease survive disclaimer by an insolvent tenant’s liquidator.  What has been less clear is how that works, given that the tenant’s obligation to pay rent dies when the lease is disclaimed.

The High Court of England and Wales handed down judgment last week in the case of Christine Mary Laverty and others as Joint Liquidators of PGL Realisations PLC and others v British Gas Trading Limited [2014] EWHC 2721.  In an important decision for the insolvency industry, it was held that the statutory deemed contracts regime for gas and electricity supply could not be used by utilities companies to gain priority over other creditors.

A High Court ruling in England today has provided a significant clarification of the law relating to payment of rent as an administration expense.

In Leisure (Norwich) II Limited v Luminar Lava Ignite Limited (in administration), the Court confirmed that rent payable in advance prior to the appointment of administrators is not payable as an expense of the administration, even if the administrators continue to use the property. This means that the rent would not be given priority over other unsecured debts.