The Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Act 2022 provided tenants in the retail and leisure sectors who had subsisting rent arrears incurred between March 2020 and August 2021 with immunity against enforcement action from landlords. However, that immunity was only for a period of 6 months from March 2022. During that window, either landlord or tenant were able to refer the matter to arbitration if they did not come to a commercial settlement.
The final date for arbitration referrals was 23 September 2022.
On September 15, President Biden announced a tentative deal with unions representing tens of thousands of railroad workers that helped narrowly avoid a strike that threatened to devastate the country’s delicate supply chains that have been strained since the beginning of the pandemic. Now the country awaits the outcome of the union member votes (which we may not know until mid-November), but even if the members approve the deal, the retail sector will still face empty shelves, job vacancies and surging inflation.
The High Court has held an original tenant and guarantor of a lease liable for unpaid sums due where the new tenant had compromised its liabilities under the lease pursuant to a restructuring plan under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006). Read on for our analysis of Oceanfill Limited v Nuffield Health Wellbeing Limited and Cannons Group Limited [2022] EWHC 2178 (Ch).
The lease and licence to assign
How do you improve the image of company voluntary arrangements? Start by reforming the voting rules.
In New York, it is a standard practice to name all tenants residing in a building when foreclosing upon the property.
La saisie conservatoire est un recours accordé en vertu du Code des Procédures Civiles d’Exécution n° 2004 [dite "PCE"] que les personnes physiques ou morales peuvent solliciter pour leurs créances monétaires. Il a pour effet de « geler » les biens du débiteur et de permettre au créancier / demandeur de procéder à une saisie conservatoire, qui peut néanmoins se transformer en saisie définitive, à la fin d’une procédure judiciaire.
Good afternoon.
Following are this week’s summaries of the Court of Appeal for Ontario for the week of September 12, 2022.
In Optiva Inc. v. Tbaytel, the Court dismissed the appeal from an arbitrator’s decision granting summary judgment. The arbitrator had the authority to proceed by summary judgment motion, as the arbitration agreement gave the arbitrator broad powers to determine the procedure to be employed.
Federal Court Judge Cheryl Ann Kraus was ‘riding the Circuit’ and decided a regulatory takings case while sitting in the District Court, District of New Jersey captioned James v. Vornlocker. Full opinion here 2022-8-31 Vornlocker.
The case was decided on motions for summary judgment, and it appears that Plaintiff admitted most of the facts and failed to genuinely contest the remaining facts set forth in the motions.
On 15 August 2022, the UK High Court handed down judgment in Oceanfill Ltd v Nuffield Health Wellbeing Ltd and Cannons Group Ltd.
Background
The claim was for rent and other arrears by Oceanfill, the landlord of a gym in Leeds. It was brought against Nuffield, the original tenant and Cannons, the original guarantor under the lease.
Nuffield had assigned the lease to Virgin Active in 2000, guaranteeing the performance of Virgin Active as tenant and Cannons had given a guarantee of Nuffield's obligations.
Virgin Active restructuring plan
The National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench vide its order dated April 25, 2022 in Mr. N. Kumar v. Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd.1 held that the project-wise Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of a real estate company is outside the purview of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).
Brief facts of the case