In today’s insecure commercial lettings market, it is becoming increasingly common for landlords to take a significant rent deposit when granting a new lease and to enforce their rights under the rent deposit deed. This is putting the drafting and enforcement of rent deposit deeds under scrutiny. How do the parties to a rent deposit deed protect their positions when the landlord assigns the reversion to the lease?

In Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology LLC, No. 17-1657, the Supreme Court has held that a debtor’s rejection of an executory contract does not abrogate the rights others enjoy under that contract. Although the Court’s ruling specifically dealt with rights to a trademark license, the reasoning appears broader than that. The Supreme Court has in effect done away with a debtor’s right to reject any lease, concession, license, or agreement and then prevent a counterparty from enjoying the use of the rights previously granted.

How do you spot a zombie company?

Zombie companies walk amongst us. They shuffle along, failing to realise that they are undead, relying on the inaction of creditors and low interest rates to mask their fundamental lack of profitability, poor growth prospects and inability to service their debts. Denied a swift, clean demise, they endure a twilight existence that deprives their living competitors of capital and opportunities.

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.

A misfeasance claim under section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA) is often a race against time to gather evidence and bring a claim before the limitation period expires. Not only can the breach pre-date the liquidation by years, but the difficulty is even greater where there is a maze of group companies and intra-group transfers. It takes time to properly work out whether a simple transfer of assets between group companies is actually a corporate shield hiding misappropriated assets.

House of Fraser (HOF) has been in the headlines for months. It started with reports of widening losses and being dragged down by soaring costs and a drop in consumer sales, but official comment from the 169-year old retailer remained positive. Then there were rumours of CVAs and negotiations with landlords leading to further controversy. Finally, last Friday (10 August 2018), a stock market announcement delivered the news that Mike Ashley’s Sports Direct had brought House of Fraser out of administration for £90 million, just hours after the store had announced its collapse.

As if business leaders did not have enough to contend with in the current economic and geopolitical climate, the trend towards increased personal accountability for company directors is continuing and can be expected to increase further. How can directors protect themselves? As a start it is important for both executive and non-executive directors to understand the overarching principles involved and how they link together.

The basic duties set out in the Companies Act 2006

On March 5, 2018, the Federal Maritime Commission voted to launch an investigation into the detention, demurrage, and per diem charges of vessel operating common carriers and marine terminal operators. The investigation will be headed by Commissioner Rebecca Dye, who will have broad authority to issue subpoenas, hold public and non-public inquiries, and require reports.

The key issues Commissioner Dye will investigate are:

As the nights drew in, the end of 2017 saw a flurry of case law on security for costs, and particularly its interaction with after the event (ATE) insurance and litigation funding. This article considers what insights can be gleaned for litigants who do not want to be left out in the cold.

Premier Motorauctions: security for costs and ATE

The raft of European and domestic litigation surrounding Mastercard fees has been long running and frankly, brain achingly complex. Hidden in the masses of litigation, the topic has sparked little interest in insolvency practitioners. However, it has the potential to generate realisations in liquidated estates where there may otherwise be nothing to offer creditors, and it warrants attention as a result.