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.

In einem Entscheid vom 5. Mai 2020 hat ein Zürcher Bezirksgericht gleichzeitig mit der Gewährung einer provisorischen Nachlassstundung die Übernahme einzelner Betriebsteile der Schuldnerin als sogenannte pre-pack Transaktion genehmigt. Das Instrument des "Pre-pack", bei dem ein Verkauf von schuldnerischen Vermögenswerten vor, aber im Hinblick auf ein nachfolgendes Nachlassverfahren vorbereitet wird, ist in der Schweiz noch wenig verbreitet.

Highlights

Dutch law provides for an extension of the limitation period in relation to claims that were “deliberately hidden” from the creditor (article 3:321 (f) Dutch Civil Code). The extension also applies if the debtor deliberately hid the fact that the claim had become due and payable (upon fulfilment of a certain condition, for example). It is, however, unclear what kind of conduct qualifies as deliberate hiding.

When will a judge adjourn a hearing when faced with an application on the basis that a party is suffering from COVID-19?

This was a question recently encountered by Simon Newman on an application under s.366 of the Insolvency Act 1986 requiring the Respondents to deliver up documents in their possession to a Trustee in Bankruptcy.

In a decision of 5 May 2020, a district court in the Canton of Zurich approved the transfer of business units of a debtor in a so-called pre-pack transaction simultaneously with the grant of a provisional debt restructuring moratorium. "Pre-pack" transactions in which a sale of debtor's assets are prepared prior to, but in view of, subsequent composition proceedings are still relatively rare in Switzerland. The most recent judgement sets out clearly the relevant requirements and provides a helpful guideline for future transactions.

The webinar looked at the widely debated issue of whether a company in liquidation can commence an adjudication by examining three recent cases on this topic.

Bresco v Michael J Lonsdale

The first being the Court of Appeal decision in Bresco Electrical Services Ltd (in liquidation) v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 27, which has recently been heard in the Supreme Court but whose judgment is awaited.

Background

The U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit recently held managing members of a limited liability company that filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy were equitably estopped from asserting ownership of equipment where the members previously verified documents in the bankruptcy showing ownership of the equipment by the company.

A copy of the opinion in Richards v. Rabo ArgiFinance, LLC is available at: Link to Opinion.

Introduction

The past decade has witnessed a significant increase in cross-border commerce involving Chinese companies. If these ventures fail, a common dilemma for our clients has been which jurisdiction they should focus their efforts on when enforcing their rights. As we explain below, the success of a cross-jurisdictional recovery claim can often depend on the important tactical decision of focusing on the correct jurisdiction(s) at the outset.

Identify all relevant jurisdictions