Section 82 of the Coronavirus Act 2020 prevents landlords from forfeiting ‘relevant business tenancies’ until 30 June, and possibly longer. Regulations have also been made restricting the use of commercial rent arrears recovery (CRAR) during the same period, and emergency legislation is promised preventing landlords from serving statutory demands and instituting insolvency proceedings. But tenants should think twice before withholding rent and other lease payments, and landlords do not necessarily have to take a passive role.
The (the Bill) was given its first reading on Wednesday 20 May 2020. Parliament will not be considering the next stages of the Bill until 3 June 2020 so there is still some time, and possibly further amendments, before this is approved and given Royal Assent. More detailed notes will be provided once this Bill has been given Royal Assent, but the headline points of the current draft are:
Statutory demands
The tragically unforeseen current novel coronavirus (COVID-19) global pandemic has brought unprecedented challenges to all aspects of Hong Kong society including the health of its citizens, the economy and the business community.
The recent decision of Adam Constable QC in the case of Meadowside Building Developments Ltd (in liquidation) -v- 12-18 Hill Street Management Company Ltd, considered an application for summary judgment to enforce a decision by an adjudicator in favour of an insolvent company.
The recent Court of Appeal decision in the case of Doherty -v- Fannigan Holdings Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1615 considers the issue of whether a failure to pay for shares, as provided for under an agreement between the parties is a debt on which a statutory demand can be based.
In Coosemans Miami v. Arthur (In re Arthur), the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida held last week that individuals in control of a PACA trust may still receive a bankruptcy discharge of debts arising from their breach of such PACA trust. A link to the opinion is here.
The Fifth Circuit recently issued an opinion that federal bankruptcy law does not prohibit a bona fide shareholder from exercising its right to vote against a bankruptcy filing notwithstanding that such shareholder was also an unsecured creditor. This represents the latest successful attempt to preclude bankruptcy through golden shares or bankruptcy blocking provisions in corporate authority documents.
On June 14, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a revised opinion that held that Federal law does not prevent a bona fide shareholder from exercising its right to vote against a bankruptcy petition just because it is also an unsecured creditor. In re Franchise Servs. of N. Am., Inc., 891 F.3d 198, 203 (5th Cir. 2018), as revised (June 14, 2018).
Weird things happen in bankruptcy court. All you high-falutin Chapter 11 jokers out there, cruise down to the bankruptcy motions calendar one day.
Bankruptcy courts have authority to hold in civil contempt one who refuses to comply with a bankruptcy court order, including incarceration and/or daily fines until the offender complies.[1] But when does civil contempt[2] cross into criminal contempt, which is punitive and outside