Can a debtor seeking debtor-in-possession (“DIP”) financing under Section 364 of the Bankruptcy Code grant a lender a lien on a leasehold interest in the face of an express anti-hypothecation provision in the underlying lease?

The High Court has ruled that liquidators of lessors can disclaim leases, thus terminating the leasehold interests of tenants.

However, yesterday's High Court decision in Willmott Growers Group Inc. v Willmott Forests Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liquidation) [2013] HCA 51 leaves open another issue: do liquidators need to get Court approval before exercising this power, and, if so, how easy or difficult would it be to get that approval?

Key Points

As a result of the legal amendments on German tenancy law that were passed in March 2020 in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic, landlords are not allowed to terminate lease agreements for default of rental payments occurring in the period from April 1 to June 30, 2020, until June 30, 2022, if those defaults result from the COVID-19 pandemic.

The High Court has struck down a company voluntary arrangement on the ground that it unfairly prejudiced a landlord who was to lose the benefit of a guarantee given by the tenant’s parent company. The judge said it was “unreasonable and unfair in principle” to require the landlord to give up the guarantee and there was “no sufficient justification” for requiring the landlord to accept a sum of money in lieu.

Landlords have lost round two in the ongoing battle as to whether rent should be paid as an expense of the administration. The decision of the Court last week in the X-Leisure / Luminar case was in favour of administrators.

Following the Goldacre case, if an administrator is using the property for the purposes of the administration on the quarter day then the full quarter’s rent is payable as an expense of the administration.  What was not clear, was whether if the administrator was appointed just after the quarter day rent was payable as an expense. 

The government recently published its Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill which includes a temporary “ban” on statutory demands. In its current form, the ban will prevent landlords and other creditors from relying on statutory demands served between 1 March and 1 month after the Bill becomes law. The Bill also includes provision to prevent the winding up of companies where their inability to pay is due to Covid 19.

Temporary provisions restricting action to wind up companies and reverse some winding up orders already made are a step closer following presentation of the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (“Bill”) to the House of Commons on 20 May. The Bill will now work its way through both Houses before imminently becoming law. The Bill includes a number of substantial corporate insolvency changes, but also temporary provisions restricting action to wind up companies in light of Covid-19, on which we focus here.

Last September we reported on the Court’s decision on the landlords’ challenge to the Debenhams CVA on grounds of unfair prejudice and material irregularity, in respect of which the landlords have now successfully obtained permission to appeal on various grounds (see below).

Judge Barber has considered the order of priority of payments in an administration and - more specifically - whether the Lundy Granite principle applies to both the rent payable once a company has gone into administration, and to the “top up” obligation requiring the company to replenish a rent deposit, where a landlord had drawn down on the deposit against unpaid rent (Re London Bridge Entertainment Partners LLP (in administration) [2019] EWHC 2932 (CH)).

The Rules

When a tenant goes into liquidation and its liquidator surrenders the lease what effect does this have on any obligations to remove any alterations that the tenant has made during the term and generally reinstate?  The high court has recently decided that the terms of a surrender that released both parties from rights arising “on or after, but not before, the date of this surrender” were sufficient to release the tenant from its obligations to reinstate the premises because these obligations were future obligations.