In the latest High Court decision relating to Company Voluntary Arrangements in the UK, the judge held that the Regis hairdressing group CVA should be revoked on the basis that it favoured shareholders at the expense of landlord creditors
Today (19 September), following an expedited trial, the High Court rejected the application brought by affected landlords to challenge the CVA entered into by Debenhams Retail Limited.
The landlord applicants sought to challenge the CVA which closed stores and imposed rent reductions on landlords according to different categories. 'Category 5' landlords took the biggest hit with rents halved and early termination dates imposed. The CVA proposal was approved by Debenhams' creditors on 9 May 2019.
Five grounds were advanced by the landlords during the hearing:
The last two months have seen two key appeals in which the court was required to decide whether the tenant of a particular type of building should enjoy the statutory right to acquire the freehold of a house. This right is enshrined in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.
The properties, and the questions for the court in each case, were quite different. What the judgments had in common was a purposive approach to interpretation of the Act.
Section 134 of Act 71 of 2008 is extremely important because it is there to protect the interests of both the company in business rescue and the creditors and other third parties related to the company.
Judge Megarry in Re Rolls Razor Limited1, aptly describes the necessity of insolvency enquiries:
One of the first cases involving the operation of section 153(1)(a)(ii) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 is the matter of Copper Sunset Trading 220 (Pty) Ltd t/a Build It Lephalale (In Business Rescue) and Spar Group Limited (First Respondent) and Normandien Farms (Pty) Ltd (Second Respondent). This matter was decided under case 365/2014 in the High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria) functioning as Limpopo Division, Polokwane.
It has been understood since the Hindcastle case in 1997 that a guarantor’s payment obligations under a lease survive disclaimer by an insolvent tenant’s liquidator. What has been less clear is how that works, given that the tenant’s obligation to pay rent dies when the lease is disclaimed.
The High Court of England and Wales handed down judgment last week in the case of Christine Mary Laverty and others as Joint Liquidators of PGL Realisations PLC and others v British Gas Trading Limited [2014] EWHC 2721. In an important decision for the insolvency industry, it was held that the statutory deemed contracts regime for gas and electricity supply could not be used by utilities companies to gain priority over other creditors.
Judge Andre van Niekerk handed down an interesting judgment in the High Court of South Africa (North Gauteng Division) on 30 September 2013. In my respectful opinion the judgment is insightful and is correct. The facts are fairly simple. Miles Plant Hire (Pty) Ltd (MPH) had a tax liability of R37 441 090.59 to the commissioner of the South African Revenue Services (SARS). SARS had levied a tax assessment in this amount on MPH, which included penalties and interest.
An interesting judgment was delivered by the Honourable J Majiki on 19 of November 2013 in the Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth. The first and second applicants under case 3521/2012 were ABSA Bank Limited and Maria Ramos respectively.