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?

On May 20, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an 8-1 ruling in the case of Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC. The decision resolves a circuit split, holding that a licensee may retain its right to use licensed trademarks, notwithstanding the debtor-licensor’s rejection of the contract in bankruptcy. The Supreme Court’s decision has potentially far-reaching implications.

In normal circumstances, a director’s primary duty (owed to the company, not the company’s shareholders or the corporate group) is to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its shareholders as a whole. When a company enters a period of financial distress (the so-called “zone of insolvency”) there is a shift of emphasis in the duties of the directors: directors must consider the interests of the company’s creditors and, depending on the extent of the financial distress, may need to prioritise such interests over those of its members.

When a company enters a period of financial distress, directors must consider the interests of the company’s creditors and, depending on the extent of the financial distress, may need to prioritise such interests over those of its members. In such distressed situations, the key current heads of liability directors may face (for which they may potentially incur personal liabilities) include wrongful trading, fraudulent trading, misfeasance and breach of duty.

On April 23, 2019, Ropes & Gray, representing a large group of shareholder defendants, won a decision in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York that provides potential fraudulent transfer protection for payments made to shareholders in leveraged buyouts, stock redemptions and other securities transactions.

Constructive Fraudulent Transfer Claims and the Securities Safe Harbor

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