The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 completed ‘ping pong’ in the House of Commons on the afternoon of 25 June 2020, received Royal Assent at 18:08 the same night and took eff ect the following day, 26 June 2020.
At 254 pages, it covers a lot more than just statutory demands and winding-up petitions, including a new company moratorium procedure, but for property folk the immediate impact is that it eff ectively removes the statutory demand/winding-up route against defaulting tenants until at least 30 September.
Five years after it refused to pay rent and took the landlord to the High Court, and two years after it was placed into liquidation on account of unpaid rent, the final branch of litigation brought by the directors of Oceanic Palms Limited (in liq) has been cut down by the Supreme Court.
Commercial landlords are exposed to a range of risks from the economic and social consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. One new risk to be confronted will come from the increased prevalence of rental deferrals and interaction with the Australian insolvency regime over ‘unfair preferences’.
Why is rent ‘protected’ in normal trading conditions?
The Coronavirus Act 2020 came into force on 20 March 2020 and, under section 82, created a moratorium on commercial landlords forfeiting business leases for non-payment of rent, which remains in place.
On 23 April 2020, the government announced additional temporary restrictions on commercial landlords, referring to:
“High street shops and other companies under strain [being] protected from aggressive rent collection”.
In this series, we look at how various payment rights are treated in bankruptcy. A summary like this could not possibly address every right that might arise in any given bankruptcy case. We have omitted several of the Bankruptcy Code’s more esoteric legal protections and exceptions that arise in specific kinds of bankruptcy cases. When bankruptcy strikes, creditors should always consult a bankruptcy lawyer to understand what actions they need to take to preserve their rights and maximize their recovery.
The Basic Concept of a “Claim”
The COVID-19 pandemic has triggered unprecedented levels of business disruption and forced numerous companies into bankruptcy in an effort to preserve dwindling liquidity and postpone creditor demands. Retailers, whose brick-and-mortar locations were already struggling to adapt to an increasingly online marketplace, have been among the hardest hit. A number of bankruptcy judges, faced with the prospect of an avalanche of forced liquidations, have thrown these debtors a lifeline by approving requests to suspend lease payments.
A case this week in New South Wales involving a dispute between the residents of a retirement village and the operator of a retirement village reminded us of some of the issues that can arise when a village goes into liquidation.
The recent decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal in Re Willmott Forests Limited (Receivers and Managers appointed) (in liquidation) [2012] VSCA 202 gives liquidators comfort when disclaiming leases (as the liquidator of a landlord) pursuant to s 568(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (‘the Act’).
In the recent Court of Appeal decision of Re Willmott Forests Ltd [2012] VSC 29, the Court held that a lessee’s leasehold interest can be extinguished by a liquidator appointed to a lessor company using the disclaimer power in s 568 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Act).
Facts
A liquidator of a landlord company who disclaims a lease under section 568(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), a section largely similar to section 269 of the Companies Act 1993 (NZ), does so with full effect, leaving the land unencumbered by the interests of tenants.