Centenary Homes Limited v (1) Jon Howard Gershinson and (2) Victoria Claire Liddell (2017)

Two big name high street retailers entered Administration in February: On 28 February, Toys R Us, whose financial struggles had been attracting media attention (not least from Ashfords' Restructuring & Insolvency Bulletin) since before Christmas, finally threw in the towel and appointed Administrators from Moorfields; while electrical goods firm Maplin also appointed PwC on the same day.

The saga of Carillion's collapse continued this month, as it transpired that accountancy giants EY had prepared plans to restructure the troubled construction firm as early as mid-December 2017.

A new wave of CVAs?

A company voluntary arrangement (CVA) is, provided the voting thresholds are met, a binding agreement made between a company and its creditors, designed to compromise a company’s obligations to its creditors.

As retailers and restaurateurs across the UK continue to show signs of financial distress, interest in the use of CVAs has increased. A common facet of a CVA is a focus on reducing rents and offloading unprofitable leases.

Compromised or full rent?

The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) has published a consultation on insolvency and corporate governance.

The consultation is aimed primarily at improving corporate governance in firms that are in or approaching insolvency. However, it also puts forward proposals for improving the wider framework of corporate governance.

The key proposals from the consultation are set out below.

Article Summary:

In Wright (and another) (as joint liquidators of SHB Realisations Ltd (formerly BHS Ltd) (in liquidation)) v Prudential Assurance Company Ltd, the court held that, when the BHS CVA terminated, the landlord was entitled to claim the full rent due under its lease. With more recent retail CVAs seeking to push the envelope even further, is the continued compromise of landlord creditors post-CVA the next issue to be tested in the courts?

 March 2018 The Government has issued a Consultation on proposals designed to reduce the risk of major company failures and to strengthen the responsibilities of directors in the context of actual or threatened insolvency. The principal specific proposals are: • directors of a holding company that sells an insolvent subsidiary to be required to take into account the interests of the creditors of that subsidiary and possibly its other stakeholders • the unwinding of transactions that have “unfairly removed value” from a company that becomes insolvent.

The Facts

This case is the latest twist in the ongoing saga of failed fintech "unicorn" Ve Interactive ("Ve"), who entered Administration in April 2017. Certain of Ve's creditors made an application to replace its Administrators, from Smith & Williamson LLP, with new Administrators from Deloitte.

In Ziggurat (Claremont Place) LLP v HCC International Insurance Company plc [2017] EWHC 3286 (TCC) the court considered a claim under an amended ABI Model Form Guarantee Bond.

As a result of a bespoke clause the Contractor's insolvency was enough to trigger recovery under the Bond, but if a breach of contract was required, the Contractor was in breach of the contract by failing to pay the amount due to the Employer following insolvency.

The Court of Appeal has held that refusal of consent for both good and bad reasons will not automatically render that refusal unreasonable.

Background

Most commercial leases require tenants to obtain the consent of their landlord prior to assigning their lease. If so, the Landlord and Tenant Act 1988 (the Act) applies to say that if the tenant serves a valid application for consent, the landlord will be subject to the following duties: