Introduction

RE: A COMPANY (INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN PRESENTATION OF PETITION)

Long awaited insolvency reforms in the UK, plus the government’s COVID-19 proposals on the use of statutory demands – and much more

What’s the latest?

Eigentümerrisiko im Insolvenzfall?

Aufgrund der angespannten Situation in der Hotelbranche treten aktuell diverse Mieter an ihre Vermieter heran und bitten um Stundung oder Erlass der Mietzahlungen für die kommende Zeit. Die Vorschläge für mögliche Kompromisse sind vielfältig – dabei ist aber immer auch die insolvenzrechtliche Situation zu beachten, um hier keine Risiken für Mieter oder Vermieter zu schaffen. Die Ausführungen dieses Beitrags gelten gleichermaßen auch für Hotelpachtverträge.

Aktuell diskutierte Kompromisse

The decision of the High Court inVanquish Properties (UK) Limited Partnership –v- Brook Street (UK) Limited provides a stark reminder of the strict requirements for serving a valid break notice and the traps into which the unwary can easily fall.

Landlords have no reason to fear Frankenstein’s monster, following the decision of the High Court in EMI Group Limited v O&H Q1 Limited. The court was considering, once again, the anti-avoidance provisions in the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995. Many will be familiar with the effect of the 1995 Act, which ensures that both tenants and their guarantors are released on assignment.

It has been understood since the Hindcastle case in 1997 that a guarantor’s payment obligations under a lease survive disclaimer by an insolvent tenant’s liquidator.  What has been less clear is how that works, given that the tenant’s obligation to pay rent dies when the lease is disclaimed.

Landlords often ask for a rent deposit when they grant a new lease, or consent to an assignment, especially if the incoming tenant is of shaky covenant strength. This provides security against possible future default.

If a tenant becomes insolvent then this is exactly the sort of situation where a landlord would want to make use of a deposit. Where it is in the “commingling” form (i.e. paid to the landlord so that it becomes a debt in favour of the tenant) then that is unproblematic: no restrictions are imposed by the moratorium which arises on the tenant’s insolvency.

The UK High Court today took a crucial step towards resolving the difficult issue of when administrators must pay rent.

Last week the High Court of England and Wales revoked a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) promoted by retailer Miss Sixty in a damning judgment that called into question the conduct of the practitioners involved. The case of Mourant & Co Trustees Limited v Sixty UK Limited (in administration) [2010] could end so-called guarantee stripping – where the CVA purports to discharge guarantees given by a third party – and provide powerful ammunition to landlords seeking to negotiate future CVAs with tenant companies.