COVID-19 - Parry Field Lawyers

In part one and two of our articles on buying and selling a business we looked at both the important issues and what the agreement for sale and purchase should cover. In part three, we will consider the impact of Covid-19 and how it has affected the buying and selling process and further points that need to be considered during these unprecedented times. Whether you are considering selling or purchasing a business, or you have just started the process, the following should be taken into consideration:

Due Diligence

In part one, we explored the importance of due diligence and key questions that should be asked. The effects of Covid-19 should not alter your approach to carrying out due diligence, in fact it may be that a more rigorous approach is taken by buyers to understand the implications Covid-19 has had on the business and how it would fare if another situation like this were to happen again. When carrying out due diligence, both seller and purchaser should be mindful that more time may be required to undertake and complete the process due to the restrictions in place, as the ability to obtain information such as important documentation or carrying out physical inspections may not be possible right away.

Material Adverse Change Clauses

As we are in the midst of the unknown, agreements between buyer and seller will be subject to greater scrutiny and negotiation. The inclusion of material adverse change (MAC) clauses in an agreement is likely to be of particular interest, especially to a buyer. A MAC clause is used to reduce risk and uncertainty for buyers during the period between the agreement and the date the deal closes. Such clauses give the right for the buyer to walk away from a deal. For a seller, taking the current climate into consideration the inclusion of such a clause should be drafted carefully, thinking about what is considered to be a change and looking to the future and the potential of a similar situation occurring again.

Finance

As a buyer, if you are obtaining finance from a third party such as bank, it may take longer and become more difficult. In these uncertain times, banks may be reluctant to lend or may seek additional requirements are satisfied in order to obtain approval. Therefore, it important that the sale and purchase documentation covers the risks that are associated with lending during this time. For example, the seller may want to include a break fee, if finance is unable to be obtained by the buyer. Where a buyer may want the ability to walk away from the deal and have a financing out condition. It will be up the parties to balance the risk and reach an agreement that they are both comfortable with.

Warranties

In this current climate, sellers may be reluctant to agree to warranties about the state of the business, as the long term effects of Covid-19 on a business may not be known for some time. While for buyers it may be that they look at additional situation-specific warranties in relation to this pandemic. Warranties will be subject to robust negations even more so than before, therefore again, it will come down to the parties being able to find the right balance in terms risk.

Other Conditions

The uncertainty for many businesses during this time may see the inclusion of other conditions in a sale and purchase agreement. Such conditions may relate to maintaining current suppliers or current employees.

Conclusion

As the restrictions ease, many are still trying to navigate their way through the unknown. It is difficult to know the long term implications of Covid-19 and effects that it will have had on the businesses that survived the lockdown period. Therefore, it will be important for those looking to buy a business to ensure they have done their ‘homework’. While sellers will need to be upfront and ensure they are covered if a situation like this were to ever occur again.

We often help both buyers or sellers of businesses and in this unique context would be happy to talk about your situation to make sure the agreements work well.

This article is not a substitute for legal advice and you should contact your lawyer about your specific situation. We would be happy to assist in your journey. Please feel free to contact Steven Moe at stevenmoe@parryfield.com or Kris Morrison at krismorrison@parryfield.com should you require assistance.

The Government has announced several urgent insolvency and corporate law changes in response to the COVID-19 Pandemic, in an attempt to keep solvent businesses afloat during this turbulent economic period. These include:

permitting electronic signatures where necessary;
giving entities unable to comply with their constitutional obligations because of the pandemic temporary relief;
giving the Registrar of Companies authority to extend deadlines imposed by legislation
amending sections 135 (“reckless trading”) & 136 (“duty to relation to incurring obligations”) of the Companies Act 1993 to afford directors greater comfort when making difficult decisions regarding their ability to continue to trade;
bringing forward changes to the voidable transactions regime; and
introducing the business debt hibernation scheme.

Once enacted, the Government has confirmed their application will be given retrospective effect from 3 April 2020.

Changes to Directors’ Duties

In light of concerns directors may prematurely place companies into liquidation for fear of personal liability incurred should they continue to trade or to take on new obligations, two significant amendments have been made to sections 135 & 136 of the Companies Act 1993.

Section 135 places an obligation on directors to abstain from agreeing, causing or allowing for a company to be operated in a manner likely to create a substantial risk of serious loss to the company’s creditors.
Section 136 places an obligation on directors to abstain from taking on a new obligation if they do not believe, on reasonable grounds, that the company will be able to fulfil its obligations under the arrangement.

Under the announcement, directors who continue to trade (including the taking on of new obligations), will be afforded a “safe harbour” period from potential claims providing these criteria are met:

the directors consider, in good faith, that the company is or will likely face significant liquidity problems in the next six months due to the pandemic;
the company was able to pay its debts as they fell due on 31 December 2019; and
the directors consider in good faith that it is more likely than not the company will be able to pay its debts as they fall due within 18 months (for example, utilising the business debt hibernation scheme to get the business back on track).

This “safe harbour” is to be enacted for (initially) a six month period. Notably, directors must continue to act prudently and in good faith in their dealings with creditors, as all other directors’ duties continue to apply including the duty to act in good faith and in the best interests of the company under s 131.

How the change to section 136 will be drafted will be of great interest to directors of companies currently under pressure as a result of the lockdown. The requirement that director(s) be satisfied that “…the company will be able to pay its debts as they fall due within 18 months” may be challenging for directors, who will have to show they has maintained appropriate financial records consistent with the size and nature of the company, that their assumptions are reasonable and (where appropriate)the directors have acted on advice. Contracts with longer-term obligations such as leases may not fall within the safe harbour period so directors need to be prudent when accessing longer-term obligations, whether existing or new.

With this in mind, it is important to keep accurate and up-to-date financial information. This includes reasonable budgets and forecasts for the next 18 months. This will allow directors to reach an informed decision on the company’s likelihood of being able to meet its debts as they would fall due in 18 months.

Changes to sections 135 & 136 come at a time when directors are increasingly concerned about their civil liability when dealing with third parties while their business is struggling. Often this results in directors prematurely resigning and appointing an external administrator. This is in part due to the recent High Court decision in Mainzeal Property and Construction Limited v Yan discussed here under which the directors of Mainzeal Property Limited were collectively ordered to pay NZ$36 million for a breach of section 135.

In December 2019, the Companies (Safe Harbour for Insolvent Trading) Amendment Bill was proposed with a view to alleviating directors’ concerns regarding their liability when deciding to continue trading, notwithstanding the company being insolvent. This Bill reduces directors’ civil liability when a company is (or will become) insolvent and its directors undertake new debts in an attempt to improve the company’s position. It remains unclear what extent the amendments mentioned hereinabove will reflect contents of this Bill.

Changes to the Voidable Transaction Regime

According to the current voidable transaction regime, a liquidator can “claw-back” payments made from the debtor company to its creditors two years before its liquidation. It has been proposed to shorten the two year vulnerability period to six months when the debtor company and the creditor are unrelated parties. Originally, this change was contained in the Insolvency Law Reform Bill, however the Government has included it amongst the recent changes because of the increase of liquidations predicted.

Business Debt Hibernation

The Business Debt Hibernation Scheme (“the Scheme”) is to be introduced to the Companies Act 1993 to supplement the relief measures that already exist between creditors and businesses. Debt hibernation effectively allows businesses to place their existing debts into “hibernation” until they are able to start trading again.

With the rationale of enhancing a company’s ability to stay afloat in the face of the pandemic, the scheme aims to:

increase discussions between creditors and directors;
enable directors to keep control of their companies rather than appointing an external administrator;
encourage continued trading between the company and its creditors by providing certainty to both parties; and
be simple and flexible.

Companies wanting to participate in the Scheme will have to meet certain criteria. This has not been announced in full, but it is expected to include:

the business would have been solvent had the Pandemic not occurred;
it would be in the best interests of the business (including its ability to pay creditors) for the business to enter debt hibernation;
the creditors of the business will need to be notified of the company’s intention to enter into the Scheme;
once the company notifies its creditors of their intention to enter into the Scheme a one-month moratorium will take effect immediately while creditors cast their votes;
consent must be obtained by at least 50% of creditors;
if the business obtains the consent of 50% of creditors, the Scheme becomes binding on all creditors, except employees, and there will be a moratorium on the enforcement of debts for a six month period once the proposal is passed; and
further payments made by the company to third party creditors during the Scheme will be excluded from the voidable transactions regime – this affords third party creditors with greater protection that, in the event of the company’s insolvency, the advance will not be clawed back.

This article is not a substitute for legal advice and you should talk to a lawyer about your specific situation. Should you need any assistance with this, or with any other commercial matter, please contact Peter van Rij at petervanrij@parryfield.com or Tim Rankin at timrankin@parryfield.com

Some of the hardest hit by the current Covid-19 crisis are small and medium sized businesses. The Government has confirmed that they can now apply to their bank for a loan under the Business Finance Guarantee Scheme (the Scheme), set up by the Government in an effort to protect jobs and support the economy during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The Scheme works alongside the Wage Subsidy Scheme which is already available to businesses. The Scheme’s purpose is to help businesses with cash flow and operating expenses in the aftermath of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Not all businesses are eligible for the scheme, however if you are a business with an annual revenue of between $250,000.00 and $80 million you can apply to your bank for a loan of up to $500,000.00 for up to three years. The bank will determine your eligibility and determine the amount available to borrow. Applications under the Scheme are now open and are available until 30 September 2020, or until all available funds, being $6.25 billion, have been exhausted.

Applications under the Scheme can be made through your bank’s website and a standard lending process will be followed through the bank’s credit assessment process to determine eligibility. In addition, banks will take into consideration your circumstances due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The interest rate and other terms of the loan will be determined by the bank under their normal lending criteria. Of course a basic question needs to be asked – does your business need more debt or can it survive without taking that on?

This is important to think through because all this really means is that the process is similar to getting a normal loan from the bank – the difference being the Government has agreed to guarantee 80% of the risk in relation to each loan with the remaining 20% to be guaranteed by the bank. If a business defaults on their loan under the Scheme, banks will follow normal enforcement procedures and it is likely that as a part of the loan process and terms the bank will have obtained personal guarantees (usually from company directors) or other security (for example a General Security Agreement over the assets of the Company) that they can enforce before relying on the Government guarantee of the loan. The guarantee provided by the Government is essentially a protection for banks who might not otherwise provide loans to companies and not as a protection for the businesses who are the ones that actually take out the loans.

For more information regarding this scheme you can refer to your bank’s website. Participating banks are ANZ, ASB, BNZ, Heartland Bank, HSBC, Kiwibank, SBS Bank, TSB and Westpac. If you’d like to talk through your current position and options then you can always contact us.

This article is not a substitute for legal advice and you should contact your lawyer about your specific situation. We would be happy to assist you in your journey. Please feel free to contact Luke Hayward at lukehayward@parryfield.com.

Are physical signatures necessary when executing legal documents?

Not always. The rules are found in the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA). The core principle is that a signature must be RELIABLE in order to have any legal effect. In determining whether the signature you have provided is reliable, the questions are:

Does the signature adequately identify you?
Does it indicate your approval of the information in the document?
Given the nature of the transaction, is the means by which your signature was provided (physical or electronic) appropriate?

An electronic method must satisfy the first two aspects above in order to be recognised as an “electronic signature” in New Zealand. Generally, an electronic signature is presumed to be reliable provided:

1. The means of creating the electronic signature is:

(a) linked only to the signatory;

(b) under the control of the signatory alone; and

2. Any alterations to either the signature or the information in the document, is detectable.

However, this presumption may be overturned if the electronic signature is held not to be ‘as reliable as is appropriate’ given the purpose and circumstances in which the signature is being required. This is very much a fact-specific determination that will depend on the context of each situation. It is suggested that the following factors be considered:

the size of the transaction (i.e. the level of risk e.g. documents involving large sums);
how often you transact with the other party concerned; and
whether the other party (and yourself) often enters into the sort of agreement represented by the document.

Practical examples of these principles

Below are some case law examples that help illustrate the standard:

Wilfred v Lexington Legal Ltd

An electronic signature (in the form of an email from a client to their lawyer signing “best regards — Harmon”) sufficed as being a reliable for the purposes of entering into a contract for legal services.

Company Net Ltd v Registrar of Companies

Original signatures were required by the Registrar of Companies in relation to company incorporation documents — albeit in this case, there were issues of identifiability that caused concern. The companies office makes clear that they do accept electronic signatures for most documents.

See: https://companies-register.companiesoffice.govt.nz/help-centre/managing-your-online-account/filing-documents-with-electronic-signatures/

Welsh v Gatchell

Agreements for sale and purchases of land can be signed electronically. Notice to the other party about electronic signatures is already provided in the standard terms of the Auckland District Law Society document which is commonly used for these types of transactions.

Consequently, although electronic signatures will generally be considered reliable, where there is a lot riding on a particular document (i.e. a sizeable transaction as opposed to a mere box ticking activity), it appears prudent to require physical signatures. Where physical signatures pose significant inconvenience and you wish to sign electronically, we advise that you give express notice to the other party that an electronic signature will bind all parties to the contents of the document, and that you expressly specify the form of electronic signature required.

What documents can be signed electronically?

As noted above, documents can be signed electronically as long as the signatory is identifiable and the signature is reliable. However, there are two main caveats to this:

Legal Requirement

Where there is a legal requirement on you to give information to a person (thus requiring your signature), you must obtain that person’s consent to receiving the information through means of electronic signature.

Documents of Integrity

Electronic signatures have no effect on documents that concern “matters of integrity” such as:

Documents relating to citizenship, elections, fish and game, civil aviation, corrections, credit contracts and consumer finance, disabled persons community welfare, fisheries, medicine regulations, misuse of drugs, passports, and court procedural documents;
Documents that relate to affidavits, statutory declarations, documents given on oath or affirmation (although there are some short term changes due to Covid-19 which we discuss below);
Powers of attorney and enduring powers of attorney, Wills, codicils and the like;
Negotiable instruments;
Bills of lading;
Warrants to enter, search or seize; and
Fair Trading Act 1986 provisions in relation to consumer standards information on goods or services, and products or safety standards.

Is it sufficient to provide electronic pdf versions of the signed documents or are originals always required?

The inclusion of a counterparts clause in documents allows parties to exchange pdf copies of signed agreements through email or fax. The party last to sign the document effects a binding contract upon their provision of the signed document to the other party/parties. It is common practice for physical signatures to be exchanged in this manner i.e. physical signature presented in electronic form/through electronic means will suffice.

The absence of a counterparts clause in the document itself however means that wet-ink physical signatures will be required. A signature may be deemed unreliable where it is performed in a manner that wasn’t agreed to between the parties as evidenced in the document.

Provision of the originally signed documents is also required when executing deeds. Section 10 of the Property Law Act 2007 requires a signed deed to be delivered in order to take effect. Delivery is commonly understood as being the physical handing over of documents either in person or through post. If the intention is to effect delivery otherwise, we advise that this be made clear in the document itself by recording that the deed shall be deemed delivered upon transmission of a scanned copy of the original executed document by one party to the other.

This article is not a substitute for legal advice and you should contact your lawyer about your specific situation. Please feel free to contact Steven Moe at stevenmoe@parryfield.com should you require assistance.

The law recognises that in certain events which are beyond the control of a party that it is not fair for that party to have to continue to comply with the contract. In light of COVID-19 it is prudent to consider if the pandemic might be a trigger for this in your contracts.

The first step is to check what the contract actually says. It won’t apply if there is no such provision in the contract. Normally it will be called a “Force Majeure” clause. The courts will generally have a high standard if a party wants to rely on this as a grounds to not fulfill the contract. The sort of factors which will be relevant are:

How are the events described? Is it generic or specific? In this particular case it will be relevant to see if there is any reference to “disease” or better, epidemics? If there is a reference to an “Act of God” then that might arguably cover this too. The most important thing is to check the specific words.
Even if there is an event, does that mean that the performance cannot be done? Just because something costs more doesn’t make it impossible – it may be that you still have to comply. Again, the context is key.
A party needs to be in control – one of the things I have seen is some arguments that a “strike” should be a force majeure event – if it is listed then it may be, but typically the management can control a strike occurring, or not. So, it might not qualify as a force majeure event. When it comes to COVID-19 again it may be that a party has no control.
The last factor relates to mitigation. A party should take steps to ensure that the contract is complied with (ie they are mitigating and stopping the impact, if they can).The key point here is perhaps that the wording of the contract needs to be reviewed. If there is no such clause then it might be possible for the doctrine of frustration to apply – this is where an event makes performance impossible compared to what had been agreed. Again, context is key.The other thing to look for in contracts would be a “material adverse change” clause – these can apply where an event occurs that means the contract is affected. You should also review any termination clauses just to see what they provide for eg 30 days written notice?Start by reviewing your contracts and consider your current situation and what the next few weeks and months will hold. If you would like to discuss your contract and situation then we would be happy to do so.

This article is not a substitute for legal advice and you should consult your lawyer about your specific situation. For any questions, feel free to contact Steven Moe stevenmoe@parryfield.com or Kris Morrison krismorrison@parryfield.com at Parry Field Lawyers.

Uncertain times require stong leadership from company directors. We are each adjusting to a new normal of video conferences replacing meetings and realising how much time we previously wasted on travel. But there are also immediate and difficult questions which directors of companies are faced with as the implications of a nationwide lock down continues. In this article we want to ask some of those hard questions so that you can proactively begin to prepare for the coming weeks and months.

Do Director duties apply still?

Yes, these continue even in difficult times. They are outlined in detail in this article but the key ones relate to acting in good faith and in the best interests of the company (section 131) and acting with the care, diligence and skill of a reasonable director (section 137) taking into account:

the nature of the company;
the nature of the decision;
the position of the director; and
the nature of responsibilities undertaken by him/her.

The other duty which will be getting a lot more attention, if there is the impact on the economy predicted, is section 135 around reckless trading. A director must not agree to, cause or allow the business of the company to be carried on in a manner likely to create a substantial risk of serious loss to the company’s creditors. This duty is aimed at preventing conduct by the directors which could jeopardise the company’s solvency. Unlike the best interests duty, the directors’ personal opinion as to the company’s ability to continue trading is irrelevant. Instead, a Court is likely to ask: “Was there something in the financial position of the company which would have alerted an ordinary prudent director to the real possibility that continuing to carry on the business of the company would cause serious loss to the creditors?”. In the context of COVID-19 this is going to become a lot more relevant to consider.

Key considerations

As well as making sure you are complying with Director Duties it is important to think widely about all the stakeholders of the company rather than just the shareholders. This includes employees, suppliers, customers – how are each of these groups impacted and what is the flow on effect on the company? You might want to have an action plan regarding:

Employees: How are they doing? Is clear messaging going out about the status? How can you help reduce stress and anxiety through eg zoom catchups?
Wage subsidy: Will there be a 30% predicted drop in revenue? If so, explore the subsidy described here.
Leases: Have you got one? Read this article if so as now may be the time to contact your landlord.
Bank funding: Talk early with your funder and ensure you know what the position is in relation to any loans you have. Are there any other funding sources to be exploring?
Shareholders: Is it worth considering raising some more capital from them (depends on unique context of your company as to whether that is an option but extra liquidity might not hurt).
Contracts: Do any of them have force majeure clauses in them – for your benefit, or not – that might mean these get paused? What impact will that have on your revenue? Have a read of this article for more on this.
Overseas suppliers/customers: Is there someone overseas that may have issues continuing due to the shut down that will flow on to impact you?Having considered all these factors does it impact on the viability of the company? Is there a risk of later realising that the company was trading recklessly? Can it continue to enter into new obligations if there is uncertainty about future revenue? Is there some external advice required to make good decisions?

Conclusion

The point of this article and these questions is not to inspire fear it is to get directors thinking about the actual position of their company in light of many complex factors at work right now. Directors should be asking questions of management – perhaps requesting more frequent updates and meetings – and documenting what their decisions are in minutes so there is a record of what they decide. We will get through this and strong leadership from Company directors will be vital for organisations to cross the bridge and get to the other side of the crisis.

This article is not a substitute for legal advice and you should consult your lawyer about your specific situation. For any questions, feel free to contact Steven Moe stevenmoe@parryfield.com or Kris Morrison krismorrison@parryfield.com

We are aware that a number of employers are unsure at this time about what they need to pay employees and whether they should apply for the Government Subsidy or not.

The Government is regularly clarifying aspects of the Subsidy and the below is our current understanding of how it may apply as at 27 March 2020.

Do employees still have to be paid?

As a general rule, where employees are, apart from the shutdown, otherwise willing and able to work, employees are entitled to be paid by their employer. This will be informed by the following however and the terms of each employee’s employment agreement.

What are some possible relevant clauses in the employment agreement?

Check to see what the agreement says on such things as unpaid leave, special leave, annual leave, what happens in a pandemic, reducing hours, varying agreements, or, in a worst case scenario, redundancy.
Remember however that, any proposed changes to such things as the employees’ usual hours of work or pay, regardless of what the employment agreement says, should be discussed with employees in advance (i.e. consultation, listening to their feedback/suggestions), rather than simply presented to employees. Any agreed variation should also be recorded in writing between the employer and employee.
The duty of “good faith” continues to apply, even in these difficult circumstances. In layman terms, “good faith” simply reflects the “golden rule” and means treating your employees like you would like to be treated (or how you might like a member of your family to be treated by their employer).

The Government subsidy – general information

See our earlier article here on applying for the Subsidy.
Where employees will not actually be physically working or will work for less than their usual hours, say from home, the short-fall, up to 80%, should be recorded as special paid leave.
So, if an employee is not working at all, the 80% will be recorded fully as special paid leave. If the employee is working half their usual hours, half will be recorded as usual wages/salary and the other half, up to 80%, would be recorded as special paid leave.
The Government Subsidy must then be used by the employer towards their 80% contribution (or any additional wage payments the employer decides to make to employees).
The balance – 20% – will need to be discussed and agreed with employees and could be a mixture/combination of unpaid leave, annual leave, sick leave or additional special paid leave. If agreement cannot be reached on employees taking annual leave, the employer can direct employees to use annual leave but only on 14 days’ notice.
The advice we have received on taxation of the Subsidy is that:
- the wage subsidy payment will not be subject to GST;
- the wage subsidy paid to the employer will not be taxable;
- the wage subsidy paid to the employee, by the employer, will not be deductible; and
- the wage subsidy is taxable to employees, being included as part of their normal wages and therefore being subject to their usual PAYE, Student Loan, Kiwisaver deductions, etc.

“What are Best Efforts?”

What about if I’m unsure if I can pay staff 80% of the usual wages for 12 weeks or whether I might ultimately have to make employees’ redundant?

The terms of the subsidy refer to employers making “best efforts” to retain staff and pay staff at least 80% of their normal income for the subsidised period (in order to qualify for the subsidy).
As at 27 March 2020, the Government has clarified that, if an employer has made “best efforts” but cannot pay staff 80% of their usual salary/wages, an employer may still claim the Subsidy but must pass on the whole of the subsidy to their employees.
An employer will still need to be prepared to demonstrate the steps it took, prior to that time, to avoid that situation. In other words, what evidence do you have of your “best efforts.” This could include:
Seeking third party financial assistance, such as from a bank or landlord or suppliers (i.e. further funding, mortgage holidays, interest free terms, deferred payments, staggered payments etc);
Seeking advice from the Chamber of Commerce, a relevant industry association or your accountant; and
Discussing with staff about whether they would be prepared to take their annual leave or sick leave entitlement to top up the Government Subsidy or accept reduced paid hours/unpaid leave. This could include only being paid the amount of the Government Subsidy, if necessary.
MSD will have the ability to check applications and verify information at a later date, including an employer’s declaration at the time of application that they will make “best efforts” to retain staff and pay at least the 80% cap.

What about in a worst case scenario and I need to look at making employees redundant?

As at 27 March 2020, the Government has clarified that, in order to claim the Subsidy, employers must keep employees in employment for the period of the Subsidy (even if they are only passing on the Subsidy to employees to keep them in employment).
It remains unclear what will happen if an employer claims the Subsidy but then makes an employee(s) redundant but it is possible (but not yet confirmed) that employers may need to repay the Subsidy relating to those employees, or at least, relating to the period of time after the employee’s employment ended.
Employers will also need to again be prepared to demonstrate what steps they took to retain staff prior to that time.
If a redundancy is undertaken, employers should again check the terms of their employment agreement to see what it provides regarding redundancy. For example, it may define when an employee will be considered redundant, the process that must be followed, what notice must be paid out, and whether any redundancy compensation is payable. The terms of the agreement will need to be followed.
A fair process, carried out in “good faith” will again be required, although consultation will need to be done by email, telephone or applications such as “zoom” and relevant timeframes for consultation and decision making may be able to be reduced.

This article is not a substitute for legal advice and you should consult your lawyer about your specific situation. Please feel free to contact Hannah Carey – hannahcarey@parryfield.com or any of the team should you need assistance.

As we are in the midst of an uncertain time there are lots of different questions and things to consider. For business owners, how can COVID-19 impact your commercial leases?

If you have such a lease, the impact of COVID-19 depends what it says – so it is worth checking your agreement with the Landlord. If you have a recent ADLS version Deed of Lease (which is industry standard) then there is a definition of “Emergency” which includes an epidemic. Clause 27.5 then has provision about access to the property in an emergency that refers to “a fair proportion of the rent and outgoings shall cease to be payable…” in some circumstances where you are unable to access the premises as a consequence of the emergency. Use that clause as the basis to talk with your Landlord in the coming weeks.

As a side note, if you only ever signed an Agreement to Lease, don’t panic that it doesn’t have that clause, as the Deed of Lease provisions are deemed to be incorporated into the Agreement to Lease as well (if it is an ADLS form) – see clause 4 of the ADLS Agreement to Lease form.

At this time we want to support businesses who have questions about what they should do next and we will be posting comments on issues we see arising from time to time.

This article is not a substitute for legal advice and you should talk to a lawyer about your specific situation. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Steven Moe – stevenmoe@parryfield.com, Kris Morrison – krismorrison@parryfield.com or Paul Owens – paulowens@parryfield.com at Parry Field Lawyers.

Christchurch CBD

Christchurch

Rolleston

Hokitika