Faced with an unprecedented number of commercial tenants who do not pay rent and may be late under their leases, many landlords and tenants may soon enter into leniency contracts that defer payment of rent and other financial obligations. The longer the COVID-19 crisis continues without tenants generating income from operating interruptions and rental and other expenses, the more difficult it becomes for tenants to re-establish their activities and pay for months of accumulation. Finally, for some landlords, the focus will be on deferring rent to redundancies. This warning identifies a potential, but very real, consequence for landlords when the tenant has declared bankruptcy after a rent termination, and proposes possible solutions, while recognizing that there is no single solution. Iluka Resources Limited v. Chemours International Operations Sarl, et al., No. 653398/2020 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 2020) (the supplier seeks, among other things, the breach of contractual damages and the declaration, on the grounds that the COVID 19 pandemic is not part of the reported “force majeure events” and does not prevent the purchaser from accepting and paying for material supplies.) (06.08.2020 Complaint) (10/05/2020 Request for dismissal and Memorandum of Understanding in support of the dismissal application) The objective of this study is to assess the consequences of terminating the lease due to a COVID 19 pandemic and the responsibility of the co-worker service provider in the event of termination. Therefore, it could be concluded that the co-working area service provider is liable against the user due to an early termination of the sublease contract, as long as the main lease is terminated by the co-working service provider.
Since the COVID-19 pandemic is not sufficient to terminate the lease itself, termination may be considered as such because of COVID-19 and the co-working area service provider is responsible accordingly. Finally, the user can claim positive damages as part of the co-working service provider`s liability. D`Amico Dry D.A.C. v. McInnis Cement Inc., No. 1:20-cv-03731-VEC (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (the shipping company asserts the breach of the contract against cement suppliers and seeks the holding of assets until arbitration on the basis that the supplier was in default prior to COVID-19 and then invoked a force majeure clause as a pretext for termination; Tribunal ordered ex parte the seizure order and rejected the cement supplier`s request to expel; The parties have entered into a confidential transaction agreement.) (14.05.2020 Appeal; 25.05.2020 Request for expulsion from the maritime annex trial by the defendant; 06/03/2020 Applicant`s Objection to defendant`s request to evacuate Maritime Annex trial; 09/02/2020 Applicant`s Letter of Approval; 09/03/2020 Memo Endorsement of Plaintiff es Consent Letter; 09/04/2020 Order of Dismissal with Prejudice) The legal actions that can be taken by the user depend on the legal characteristics of the relationship between the co-work service provider and the user.