Challenging a Tenant CVA
Company Voluntary Agreements ("CVAs") have been the go-to option for struggling retail businesses over the pandemic period. While all creditors are generally treated equally under a CVA, landlords are increasingly finding themselves at the short end where they are the only, or one of, a very small pool of, creditors taking a hit. It is now more important than ever that a landlord knows the circumstances by which they can challenge a tenant's CVA.
As England enters its second period of lockdown, commercial landlords are reminded that the temporary measures put in place by the UK Government earlier this year, protecting commercial tenants from eviction and the operation of CRAR and restrictions on the use of certain insolvency processes, are set to continue during the second lockdown and beyond.
The measures are intended to protect business tenants that are unable to pay their rent as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The key measures
In a decision of McDonald J in RESAM Cork UC & Anor v Monsoon Accessorize Ltd & Anor, Apperley Investments Ltd & Ors v Monsoon Accessorize Ltd1, the High Court refused to recognise and enforce certain provisions of Monsoon Accessorize Limited’s ("Monsoon") Company Voluntary Arrangement implemented in the United Kingdom as they related to Irish leases on the basis that to do so would be manifestly contrary to the public policy of the State.
Scottish landlords enjoy a preferential right of security known as “landlord’s hypothec” in respect of any unpaid rent arrears due in the event that their tenants enters administration or liquidation. The landlord's right of hypothec is unique to Scots Law and is not available to landlords in respect of properties south of the border. For reasons we will go on to discuss, the current legal framework on landlord’s hypothec is not particularly well developed and is widely criticised as being unsatisfactory.
Status as of 3/11 11:40 am CET
Table of content
In the latest saga concerning “covenants running with the land” and the rejection of midstream gathering agreements under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code (the Code), the Honorable Christopher Sontchi, Chief Judge of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court (the Court), issued three1 decisions holding that certain of Extraction Oil & Gas, Inc.’s (Extraction) gathering agreements with its midstream service providers did not create real property interests and, thus, that Extraction could reject such gathering agreements in its chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings.
Introduction
There are several ways in which property owners can advantageously use the Bankruptcy Code to effectuate strategic dispositions of assets. But the bankruptcy process can be fraught with uncertainty that can upend the best laid plans. The matter of In re Wansdown Properties Corp. N.V., No. 19-13223 (SMB), 2020 WL 5887542 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Oct. 5, 2020) provides an instructive and cautionary example.
In a judgment delivered on 14 October 2020, Mr. Justice McDonald declined to confirm the appointment of an examiner to New Look Retailers (Ireland) Ltd (New Look).
Facts
Due to the ongoing COVID pandemic and associated economic downturn, the number of companies facing the prospect of insolvency, or being struck off the Register of Companies, is increasing daily. Whilst the rules on striking off have been relaxed by Companies House where late delivery of accounts etc has been caused by COVID, these are only temporary measures. Indeed, the compulsory striking off process has recently resumed for companies that Companies House don’t consider are currently operating, so it may be that normal practice isn’t far away.