The legal challenge (Carraway Guildford (Nominee A) Limited and Others v Regis UK Limited and Others, No. 8276 of 2018) by landlords against a retail company voluntary arrangement (CVA) was accepted by Mr Justice Zacaroli.

Business interruption (BI) insurance protects businesses against loss suffered as a result of a slowdown or suspension of operations. This includes loss of profits, loan payments and certain expenditure, such as rent.

The government has introduced the Debt Respite Scheme (Breathing Space), which came into effect on 4 May 2021, which allows individuals who are struggling with debt to apply for a “breathing space” in which to sort out their finances.  This scheme, which was introduced in response to the unprecedented impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, includes residential tenants who are in arrears of rent.

What is a breathing space?

There are two types of breathing space:-

- Jurisdiction and unfair prejudice open to review on appeal

First instance decision

Landlords on 10th May lost their legal challenge at first instance against fashion retailer New Look’s use of a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) it put in place to help it restructure its business.

The landlords argued several points of challenge in their original application, most importantly from a legal and commercial perspective that CVA jurisdiction does not extend to complex, differential arrangements.

Landlords have become used to the concept of the retail CVA over the past few years, but the new post COVID-19 breed of CVAs has been pushing the boundaries as never before. Further, a new restructuring option – described by some as a “CVA on steroids” – is now available to tenants courtesy of the recently enacted Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act: the s26A Restructuring Plan. Restructuring Plans enable companies, with the sanction of the Court, to impose new terms on creditors even in circumstances where not all classes of creditor have approved the plan.

In the recent case of TMG Brokers Ltd (In Liquidation) (also known as: Baker v Staines) the High Court held a director of a company to be jointly and severally liable for payments made by his co-director out of the company’s bank account which were made without proper authority and amounted to disguised distributions of capital. The fact that he had placed trust in the other director for the company's financial affairs did not excuse him from performing his duties.

Background

In what is likely to be the most significant change to the UK restructuring and insolvency market since the Enterprise Act 2002, the Court has paved the way for restructuring plans (RPs) under Part 26A to the Companies Act 2006 to be used to compromise the rights of landlords, financial creditors and other unsecured creditors provided the company shows that those creditors are “out of the money”.

If you thought the popularity of CVA's had been overshadowed by restructuring plans you might have to think again and watch what happens in the coming months. As you will know from the press there are a number of high-profile retail CVA's which are being challenged by landlords – New Look and Regis to name just two.

The fact that more businesses have not failed is the most surprising thing about the Covid-19 pandemic. However, if you look at the fashion retail sector alone, the list of some of the high profile casualties is alarming: Arcadia Group, Bonmarché, Debenhams, DW Sports, Laura Ashley, M&Co, Monsoon, Moss Bros, Oasis and Warehouse, Peacock and Jaeger, TM Lewin and Victoria’s Secret (UK Business)… with more expected.

Summary

The much anticipated judgement of Mr Justice Snowden in relation to a restructuring plan proposal (the “Plans”) made by Virgin Active Holdings Limited, Virgin Active Limited and Virgin Active Health Clubs Limited (the “Plan Companies”) was handed down on 12 May 2021.