header-logo header-logo

28 April 2020
Issue: 7884 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Commercial
printer mail-detail

COVID-19: Protecting retailers

Safeguards for commercial tenants may need to be extended beyond the duration of COVID-19, lawyers have warned

Business secretary Alok Sharma announced temporary measures last week to protect retailers against aggressive debt recovery actions during the pandemic.

Statutory demands made between 1 March and 30 June, and winding-up petitions presented between 27 April and 30 June, will be temporarily voided. The measures will be included in the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill, which Sharma set out earlier this month.

The government is laying secondary legislation to give tenants longer to pay rent by preventing landlords using Commercial Rent Arrears Recovery (CRAR) unless they are owed 90 days of unpaid rent. A three-month moratorium on evictions is already in place, due to end on 24 June.

City law firm RPC partners welcomed the measures, but called on the government to reassure retailers they would be protected beyond the lockdown.

RPC real estate partner Elizabeth Alibhai said the ban on winding-up petitions was ‘extremely positive news for retailers impacted by coronavirus and closes a loophole where landlords were using insolvency processes to get around the government's previously announced ban on evictions.

‘However, it is vitally important that these protective measures endure long enough for retailers to get back on their feet. To give these businesses a fighting chance of overcoming the many challenges they face, the moratorium should be in place for at least the next 3-6 months.’

The firm also highlighted procedural uncertainty as to how the protection is obtained or enforced. Sharma’s announcement suggested it would be a decision for the courts, but the RPC partners said a court makes its initial consideration of a petition at the first hearing, by which stage the petition has been advertised and many of the adverse consequences have already occurred.

Issue: 7884 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Commercial
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll