Discovery (Northampton) Ltd & others v Debenhams Retail Ltd & others [2019] EWHC 2441(Ch)

Company Voluntary Arrangements (“CVAs”) are seen as most unfair by landlords who are often forced to continue to make a supply of premises at an imposed reduced rent.

This article was updated on Jan. 9, 2020. 

Retail Company Voluntary Arrangements (CVAs) are becoming an increasingly popular means of minimising liabilities and creating breathing space for tenants during a difficult trading environment on the High Street. Where does this leave landlords?

Background:

Whilst receiving a judgment in your favour may feel like the culmination of a potentially lengthy legal process, it may be just the first step (though an important one) on the path to financial recovery. In our latest insight, we look at how and when you can enforce a judgment to realise payment of any damages or costs which have been awarded.

What is enforcement?

Companies and human resource managers need to be aware of the potential immigration implications that corporate changes, acquisitions or restructurings may have on temporary foreign workers (TFWs) that they employ in Canada. The immigration and work permit implications must be assessed before changes occur.

One of the biggest concerns for employers reorganizing in response to operational requirements is the potential for constructive dismissal claims by employees impacted by the changes.

A recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision reminds us that a finding of constructive dismissal by a court, does not always result in an award of damages.

In certain circumstances, if a claim is proven, the defendant will be able to offset monies that are due to it from the claimant - this is known as set off.

Here, we cover the basics of set off, including the different types of set off and key points you need to know.

What is set off?

Where the right of set off arises, it can act as a defence to part or the whole of a claim.

Mit rechtskräftig gewordenem Urteil vom 06.03.2019 (Az. 5 O 234/17) hat das Landgericht Wiesbaden entschieden, dass es dem Insolvenzverwalter und allen versicherten Personen verwehrt ist, Versicherungsschutz für Inanspruchnahmen zu verlangen, die einer Versicherungsperiode zuzuordnen sind, für die der Insolvenzverwalter die Nichterfüllung des D&O-Versicherungsvertrags gewählt hat.

In a final ruling dated 6 March 2019 (Case ref.: 5 O 234/17), the Regional Court of Wiesbaden decided that the insolvency administrator and all insured persons are not entitled to claim insurance coverage for claims attributable to an insurance period for which the insolvency administrator has chosen not to fulfi l the D&O insurance contract.