The recent Court of Appeal case involving Topland Limited and Smiths News Trading Limited was a salutary lesson about the strict rules that protect guarantors and the perils of forgetting them.  The facts of the case were relatively simple:  Topland owned a commercial property, leased to the rather aptly named Payless DIY Ltd, which became insolvent.  Topland brought a claim against the tenant’s guarantor, Smiths, for arrears of over £280,000 and required them to take a new lease for the remainder of the term.

Last week the High Court of England and Wales revoked a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) promoted by retailer Miss Sixty in a damning judgment that called into question the conduct of the practitioners involved. The case of Mourant & Co Trustees Limited v Sixty UK Limited (in administration) [2010] could end so-called guarantee stripping – where the CVA purports to discharge guarantees given by a third party – and provide powerful ammunition to landlords seeking to negotiate future CVAs with tenant companies.

KEY POINTS

Financial guarantees often contain non-competition clauses. This is mainly to:  

• increase the financier’s recoveries from its principal debtor, by stopping the guarantor from draining money from the principal debtor; and  
• prevent the guarantor from obstructing a restructuring of the principal debtor’s liabilities.  

A recent case suggests these clauses should expressly exclude the “rule in Cherry v. Boultbee”. Zoë Thirlwell and Alexander Hewitt explain.

Counter-indemnity rights  

InterTAN Canada Ltd (“InterTAN”) is a wholly owned subsidiary of US based Circuit City Store, Inc. (“Circuit City”), a consumer electronics retailer. In Canada, InterTAN operates retail stores under the trade name “The Source by Circuit City”. Prior to Circuit City's filing under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, InterTAN was a borrower under a syndicated credit facility between Circuit City, certain U.S. affiliates, InterTAN, Bank of America NA, as agent, and certain other loan parties (the “Secured Credit Facility”).

1117387 Ontario Inc., by court order in October 2003, was placed under receivership for defaulting on payment of a mortgage. In October 2008, the Court was asked to approve the receiver’s third report and the proposed sale of the mortgaged lands. A complicating factor was that the mortgaged lands were subject to environmental contamination as a result of a neighbouring oil and gas facility.

In Royal Bank v. 2021847 Ontario Ltd. et al. (2007), Carswell Ont. 8283, the plaintiff Royal Bank sought summary judgment against the guarantors of a credit facility it granted to 2021847 Ontario Ltd. (“2021847”). The amount the plaintiff sought against the guarantors was the deficiency remaining after the plaintiff had appointed a receiver over the assets of the debtor company. The proceeds from the realization of the receivership were insufficient to payout 2021847’s credit facility.

The mere existence of a secured remedy against another party is not a substantial ground for refusing to allow a creditor to pursue a remedy against a guarantor.

In King v PFL Finance Limited & Anor [2015] NZCA 517, the Kings, a husband and wife team of farmers, arranged finance from PFL Finance Limited but the loan went into default.  PFL served PLA notices but failed to serve the Kings as guarantors.  A receiver was appointed to the farming operation, who determined to cease trading the day after his appointment.

In the current economic climate, security for payment is key. Although banks have started to lend money again, they remain cautious and those construction firms with weak balance sheets remain at risk of insolvency. This article discusses five pitfalls in the context of some relevant case-law and devices to protect against these.