It has long been the law that termination of contracts is permissible under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) and Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) with the effect of the termination being to create an unsecured claim for damages in place of the contract. What has not been permitted is allowing insolvent companies to pick and choose parts of an agreement to terminate. Following a recent decision arising out of receivership proceedings in the Yukon, it may now in some circumstances be possible to terminate parts of an agreement.

Introduction

Adjudication is a quick and comparatively cheap method of dispute resolution and for those reasons is attractive to insolvent companies seeking to recover debts. However, a respondent was likely to be able to restrain the insolvent company from referring the matter to adjudication on the basis that it would be futile to do so, since any positive decision was unlikely to be enforced as a result of the very fact of the company’s insolvency. Therefore, any award lacked practical utility. Following the decision of the Supreme Court in Bresco v Lonsdale, that is no longer the case.

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.

Highlights

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

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.