MB had been the secured tenant of a property in which she lived with B, and which she had bought at a substantial discount. The property was conveyed into the joint names of MB and B as joint tenants. Although MB’s mortgage company had insisted the property be in joint names, she claimed that the intention had always been that B would only have a minimal interest in it. He had made no contribution to the purchase price, mortgage repayments or household expenses. When MB had ascertained the effect of the joint tenancy, she gave notice of severance to B.

Re Powerhouse Limited: Prudential Assurance Company Limited v PRG Powerhouse Limited [2007] EWHC 1002 Ch Guarantees are widely used in commercial transactions to provide assurance to creditors that debts or other obligations owed to them are discharged fully in the event the principal debtor fails to perform. This assurance was shaken by the steps taken in early 2006 by PRG Powerhouse Limited (Powerhouse) to enter into a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) that contained proposals to release certain parent company guarantees given to landlords of premises being vacated by Powerhouse.

A recent decision from the High Court has shed some light on the remedies available to landlords under insolvency legislation against tenants who enter into administration. The decision provides useful guidance on the ability of a landlord to exercise its right of forfeiture.

On 2 May 2007 the House of Lords ruled that the mere appointment of a receiver was not enough for a company to recover damages for business contracts that were allegedly lost as a result of that appointment.

In a decision that will have important repercussions for creditors with the benefit of guarantees, the High Court this week has held that a company in financial difficulties may not propose a voluntary arrangement which is unfairly prejudicial on its terms to certain creditors.

Re Powerhouse

The Powerhouse CVA, which sought to strip away guarantees provided by the parent company to landlords of Powerhouse, has been struck down as unfairly prejudicial by the High Court. However, certain aspects of the judgement remain unclear and could be subject to future appeal…

BACKGROUND TO THE POWERHOUSE CVA

Powerhouse (an electrical retailer) proposed a CVA on 1 February 2006 with the intention of closing 35 of its stores (the Closed Premises).

The bank took a charge on the borrowers’ property. In January 1992, it demanded payment of the balance due under the secured facilities. In June 1992, it made a further formal demand specifically relying on the mortgage. One of the borrowers was subsequently made bankrupt. Periodically, the bank informed the borrowers that they continued to be liable and made demands for payment and referred to the mortgage.

The claimant obtained a judgment against the defendant for breach of a guarantee. The defendant entered into an IVA with his creditors, which included his liability to the claimant. The defendant paid the judgment sum to the claimant, but not the interest awarded on it. The claimant contended that the award of interest was a post-IVA claim, and threatened to bankrupt the defendant which would lead to a termination of the IVA. The defendant applied for a stay of execution of the interest part of the judgment, on the ground that it was within the IVA.

Although this case is about a trustee in bankruptcy’s fight to realise his interest in a property by virtue of a debtor’s bankruptcy, the facts (though extreme) are not untypical of a finance company’s position when a hirer refuses to return goods to it despite the fact the court has ordered the hirer to do so.

In this case Mr Canty was made bankrupt in relation to a relatively small debt and he never accepted the position. There followed a number of appeals and challenges over the following years in which he attempted to reopen and relitigate earlier proceedings.

In an important decision for commercial property landlords, the High Court in Prudential Assurance Co Ltd and Others v PRG Powerhouse Limited and Others has ruled that a CVA (defined below) cannot operate so as to prevent landlords from enforcing a parent company guarantee. The Court's decision however was reached on the basis that to determine otherwise would have been "unfairly prejudicial" to the landlords.