The High Court dismissed landlords’ challenges to the terms of New Look’s company voluntary arrangement (CVA) last week in a ruling that has sparked lively debate within both the landlord and restructuring sectors.

The landlords challenged the CVA by way of three main limbs:

The Covid-19 pandemic has been with us now for over 12 months. At the time of writing, we are part way through the third national lockdown. The Government has indicated that schools should start reopening on 8 March 2021, but there is no indication of when non-essential retail will reopen or when the directive to work from home ‘where possible’ will be eased.

Following yesterday’s announcement that a number of the temporary measures brought in by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act (CIGA) to ease pressures on companies most at risk of insolvency during the ongoing Covid-19 crisis are to be extended, we look here at some of the key questions arising under CIGA in the context of the commercial landlord and tenant relationship.

The Government has already taken steps to prevent landlords of commercial premises in England and Wales from forfeiting leases for arrears of rent. This restriction presently lasts until 30 June 2020, but may be extended.

Impact on payment of rent

Rent due was not forgiven and landlords were still able to take various enforcement steps to recover rent, including the use of insolvency proceedings.

Once I have a contract it is binding unless the other side goes bust – right?

One party to a contract cannot unilaterally change the deal – right?

If a commercial tenant does not pay its rent the landlord can forfeit – right?

As landlords have found to their cost this year, the answer is that a CVA can challenge all of these assumptions.

“[C]ourts may account for hypothetical preference actions within a hypothetical [C]hapter 7 liquidation” to hold a defendant bank (“Bank”) liable for a payment it received within 90 days of a debtor’s bankruptcy, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on March 7, 2017.In re Tenderloin Health, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4008, *4 (9th Cir. March 7, 2017).

The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Bankruptcy Rules”) require each corporate party in an adversary proceeding (i.e., a bankruptcy court suit) to file a statement identifying the holders of “10% or more” of the party’s equity interests. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7007.1(a). Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn, relying on another local Bankruptcy Rule (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. R.

A Chapter 11 debtor “cannot nullify a preexisting obligation in a loan agreement to pay post-default interest solely by proposing a cure,” held a split panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Nov. 4, 2016. In re New Investments Inc., 2016 WL 6543520, *3 (9th Cir. Nov. 4, 2016) (2-1).

While a recent federal bankruptcy court ruling provides some clarity as to how midstream gathering agreements may be treated in Chapter 11 cases involving oil and gas exploration and production companies (“E&Ps”), there are still many questions that remain. This Alert analyzes and answers 10 important questions raised by the In re Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation decision of March 8, 2016.[1]

An asset purchaser’s payments into segregated accounts for the benefit of general unsecured creditors and professionals employed by the debtor (i.e., the seller) and its creditors’ committee, made in connection with the purchase of all of the debtor’s assets, are not property of the debtor’s estate or available for distribution to creditors according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit — even when some of the segregated accounts were listed as consideration in the governing asset purchase agreement. ICL Holding Company, Inc., et al. v.