The government has recently announced plans to extend the moratorium on evictions for non-payment of commercial rent - first introduced in March 2020 under the Coronavirus Act 2020 - to 25 March 2022. At the same time it has introduced legislation to extend the restrictions on statutory demands and winding-up petitions under the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA) to 30 September 2021.

Following a government announcement on 16 June, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Extension of the Relevant Period) (No. 2) Regulations 2021 (the Regulations) have been laid before Parliament, coming into force on 22 June.

On 26 June 2020, the eagerly anticipated Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (“CIGA”) came into force. The result is that the changes made to insolvency law will now hinder the ability of landlords to recover unpaid rent from its tenants. We look at how the provisions of CIGA do this and the remaining options available to landlords to recover overdue rent.

What has CIGA changed?

(a) Statutory demands

Traditionally, Midsummer’s Day marks a time for festivities and optimism. But, as 24th June approaches, commercial landlords and tenants are unlikely to enjoy such sanguinity.

This article was first published by CoStar News on 5 June 2020 and can be seen here.

(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

The Sixth Circuit affirms the B.A.P., holding the entry of summary judgment in favor of the creditors in the nondischargeability action was appropriate. The creditors obtained a default judgment against the debtor in Tennessee state court. The default judgment was on the merits and the doctrine of collateral estoppel applied. Opinion below.

Judge: Rogers

Appellant: Pro Se

Attorneys for Creditors: Keating, Muething & Klekamp, Joseph E. Lehnert, Brian P. Muething, Jason V. Stitt