Real Estate Quarterly

Summer 2020

Contents

This newsletter is written in general terms and its application in specific circumstances will depend on the particular facts.

If you would like to receive this newsletter by email please pass on your email address to one of the editors listed below.

For many years, commercial lenders have struggled with ways to protect their collateral following a borrower’s default. If a lender wanted to appoint a receiver to ensure the collateral maintained its value, Florida law provided inconsistent guidance and was a patchwork of different legal opinions detailing when appointment was appropriate and what powers the receiver would possess. Fortunately, a new Florida law will finally provide welcome clarity, certainty and expediency in the appointment of receivers in commercial property litigation and related foreclosures.

Government intervention in the commercial letting market, in response to COVID-19, has continued with the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 becoming law on 25 June.

We have updated our June briefing on remedies for unpaid rent to reflect the recent legislative changes, including the extension of the temporary prohibition on forfeiture.

In addition to cases that are similar to those the previous two batches concerning enforcement against enterprises over pandemic prevention and control materials, the 13 cases in this third batch also contain examples of enterprises not in the pandemic prevention and control materials business resuming work and production. The cases fully shows how the courts used the Internet and telephones to coordinate and negotiate enforcement during the epidemic, thereby keeping public order, minimizing losses and achieving wins for multiple parties.

On 13 December 2019, in Franz Boensch as Trustee of the Boensch Trust v Scott Darren Pascoe[1] the High Court unanimously dismissed an appeal from a judgment of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, in which the appellant sought compensation from his former trustee in bankruptcy pursuant to section 74P of the Real Property Act 1900 (NSW) (RPA).

Extension of tenant protection provisions

Government intervention in the commercial landlord and tenant relationship has created significant, but time limited, restrictions upon some of the remedies available to a commercial landlord against a non-paying tenant. These restrictions are well known but the period during which they will apply has now been extended:

In a decision of first impression entered on June 3, 2020, a Chicago bankruptcy court (“Court”) held that a restaurant tenant was excused from paying a significant portion of its rent under the force majeure provisions of its lease because of the governor’s executive order prohibiting in-house dining during the COVID-19 pandemic.[1] This decision is highly significant for landlords and tenants whose ability to service their clients has similarly been restricted by government orders.

A Chicago bankruptcy court recently ruled in In re Hitz Restaurant Group that a debtor’s obligation to pay rent during its bankruptcy case may be temporarily reduced because of a force majeure clause in the lease and the governor’s COVID-19 stay-at-home order. Both landlords and tenants should be aware that this rent reduction was carefully crafted and was not unlimited by the court.

Widespread closures due to the COVID-19 pandemic have generated countless lawsuits across the country over missed rent payments. Defendants in these cases are often commercial tenants with conflicting obligations to pay rent under their leases, while also shuttering their doors in accordance with government stay-at-home orders.

Widespread closures due to the COVID-19 pandemic have generated countless lawsuits across the country over missed rent payments. Defendants in these cases are often commercial tenants with conflicting obligations to pay rent under their leases, while also shuttering their doors in accordance with government stay-at-home orders.