As most businesses, landlords and property solicitors will now know, s.82 of the Coronavirus Act 2020 (“CA 2020”) means there can be no forfeiture for non-payment of rent until July 2020, possibly later (“the relevant period”). But forfeiture has never been the only option open to a landlord whose tenant isn’t paying rent. The government lockdown was announced just two days before the March quarter day, with the inevitable consequence that many businesses did not pay the March quarter day rent.

In the recent case of Signature Living Hotel Limited v Andrei Sulyok Roxana Monica Cocarla [2020] EWHC 257 (Ch), 2020 WL 00929732 the High Court considered whether two deeds of guarantee which failed as deeds (because the formalities for a deed had not been complied with) remained enforceable as a matter of contract.

Last September we reported on the Court’s decision on the landlords’ challenge to the Debenhams CVA on grounds of unfair prejudice and material irregularity, in respect of which the landlords have now successfully obtained permission to appeal on various grounds (see below).

The ferocious expansion of the shared office sector in recent years has caused a great deal of speculation about the long term viability of shared office accommodation as a business model.

In this insight, we look at how a shared office provider's insolvency might impact on its occupiers, depending on the insolvency process which is followed.

The shared office accommodation business model

Re System Building Services Group Limited [2020] EWHC 54 (Ch)

Summary

A recent High Court ruling has considered the character and extent of directors’ duties in the context of insolvency.

In System Building Services, Insolvency and Companies Court Judge Barber (“ICCJ Barber”) considered, amongst other things, the nature of a director’s duties to a company and whether those duties survive the company’s entry into an insolvency process.

Systems Building Services Group Ltd, Re [2020] EWHC 54 (Ch)

Liquidation is not a panacea for the relevance and application of directors' duties. A practical example of which involves a director of a company in insolvency procuring and agreeing to an off-market sale of a property to himself by a rogue IP at a price which he knew to be a significant undervalue.

We previously considered the potential implications for insolvency professionals of the rise of cryptocurrencies (available here). One of the principal issues identified was the uncertainty surrounding the legal status of cryptocurrencies; what class of asset were they and, subsequently, how would they be treated under English law?

On 4 December 2019, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in MacDonald and another (Respondents) v Carnbroe Estates Ltd (Appellant) (Scotland) [2019] UKSC 57. The appeal concerned the interpretation of ‘adequate consideration’ under section 242 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”) and the remedies that courts can apply if there is a gratuitous alienation, and inadequate consideration paid for the transaction in question.

Judge Barber has considered the order of priority of payments in an administration and - more specifically - whether the Lundy Granite principle applies to both the rent payable once a company has gone into administration, and to the “top up” obligation requiring the company to replenish a rent deposit, where a landlord had drawn down on the deposit against unpaid rent (Re London Bridge Entertainment Partners LLP (in administration) [2019] EWHC 2932 (CH)).

The Rules

In this three part blog we highlight three recent court decisions concerning landlord rights and insolvency, which provide cautionary warnings and surprising twists. The questions we consider are:

1. Does a company voluntary arrangement (“CVA”) permanently vary the terms of a lease?
2. Can a landlord be forced to accept a surrender of a lease?
3. What are the consequences of taking money from a rent deposit if the tenant company is in administration?

In part 1 we consider the first question.