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.

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Dec. 4, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the motion to dismiss, finding the defendant’s security interest in the debtor’s assets, including its inventory, has priority over the plaintiff’s reclamation rights. The plaintiff sold goods to the debtor up to the petition date and sought either return of the goods delivered within the reclamation period or recovery of the proceeds from the sale of such goods. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 546(c), the Court finds the reclamation rights are subordinate and the complaint should be dismissed. Opinion below.

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 22, 2017)

(B.A.P. 6th Cir. Nov. 28, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. affirms the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of the Chapter 12 bankruptcy case. The court finds that the bankruptcy court failed to give the debtor proper notice and opportunity to be heard prior to the dismissal. However, the violation of due process was harmless error. The delay in filing a confirmable plan and continuing loss to the estate warranted the dismissal. Opinion below.

Judge: Preston

Attorney for Appellant: Heather McKeever

(6th Cir. Nov. 14, 2017)

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Nov. 1, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the creditor’s motion for stay relief to proceed with a state court foreclosure action. The creditor had obtained an order granting stay relief in a prior bankruptcy filed by the debtor’s son, the owner of the property. The debtor’s life estate interest in the property does not prevent the foreclosure action from proceeding. Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

Attorney for Debtor: Mark H. Flener

Attorney for Creditor: Bradley S. Salyer