The High Court gave its ruling yesterday in the case of Discover (Northampton) Limited and others v Debenhams Retail Limited and others [2019] EWHC 2441 (Ch), rejecting four of the five grounds on which the Applicants disputed the validity of the company's Creditors Voluntary Arrangement ("CVA"), which was approved by creditors in May 2019.

On 19 September 2019, Norris J handed downjudgment in the challenge brought by six landlords against the Debenhams Retail Limited (Debenhams) company voluntary arrangement (CVA) which was approved by 94.71% of Debenham’s unsecured creditors on 9 May 2019.

Before ICC Judge Barber In the Insolvency and Companies List

The facts

Following an expedited trial, the High Court has rejected an application brought by a group of landlords known as the Combined Property Control Group (“CPC”) to challenge the company voluntary arrangement (“CVA”) proposed by Debenhams Retail Limited (“Debenhams”).

CPC challenged the CVA on five grounds. The judge in the case, Mr Justice Norris, held that four of the five grounds failed and directed certain “Forfeiture Restraint Provisions” be removed from the CVA as a result of the fifth.

Can a CVA bind a landlord in respect of future rents? Is the landlord a creditor in respect of future rent? What about the right to forfeit; can a CVA modify that right? Is compromising rent under a CVA automatically unfair to landlords when other trade creditors are paid in full?

These were some of the points considered by the Court in determining whether the Debenhams’ CVA (which had been challenged by landlords) should fail.

One point of particular interest is whether reducing rents below market value in a CVA is automatically unfair to landlords?

On 5 July 2019 the Minister of Justice submitted a bill to parliament that will add a new powerful tool to the Dutch restructuring toolbox. The bill on the “Act on the Confirmation of a Private Restructuring Plan” is expected to introduce a serious competitor to the UK’s Scheme of Arrangement and the USA’s Chapter 11. The introduction of the bill will move one step closer on 26 September 2019, when members of the parliament are scheduled to submit their questions and remarks on the bill to parliament’s Standing Committee on Justice and Security.

The High Court has confirmed that a sale by a receiver to a buyer connected with the mortgagee does not engage the self-dealing rule and further considered the extent of the duties on an enforcement sale.

The Court of Appeal has clarified a technical question on the proper operation of Section 245 IA 1986 and the extent to which it might invalidate floating charges taken to secure the supply of goods or services.

Section 245 IA 1986 invalidates floating charges created during the 12 months before insolvency, except (among other matters) to the extent of:

In Re HMV Ecommerce Ltd [2019] EWHC 9(Ch), the directors purported to appoint administrators out-of-court by e-filing the appointment documents at court at 5.54pm on December 28th. The Court’s decision on the validity of the appointment is welcome – but it did not address the underlying problem.

The development of new powertrain technology; challenges within established markets, such as diesel emissions issues; and falls in automotive production – production in the United Kingdom has fallen during the last 12 consecutive months – have had a significant impact on the automotive and mobility industry.