These are just a few of the big high street names which have sought to compromise their obligations to creditors in recent months via a company voluntary arrangement (CVA).

CVAs are designed as a flexible method by which companies can seek to contractually alter their position regarding different creditors – each CVA will be different, but it is typical, for example, for unsecured trade creditors to be treated differently to landlords. It’s worth noting that secured creditors are not bound by a CVA, unless they agree to this.

2018 has been one tough year on the High Street...

Retail, as a sector, has long been under pressure from increased competition from online retailers, which has resulted in reduced footfall on the High Street, affecting many companies, including many well-known names.

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?

At just before 7.00am on Monday 15 January 2018 following an urgent telephone hearing, a High Court Judge agreed to place six of the Carillion Group companies into compulsory liquidation and appoint the Official Receiver as Liquidator. At the same time, six partners of PwC were appointed as Special Managers to assist the Liquidators.

The Recast Insolvency Regulation (Regulation 2015/848) (“Recast Regulation”) will apply to all member states of the EU (with the exception of Denmark) in relation to insolvency proceedings opened on or after 26 June 2017. The Recast Regulation takes a similar approach to that of the prior EU Insolvency Regulation (Regulation 1346/2000), which came into force in 2002. The Recast Regulation seeks to create a uniform code for insolvency jurisdiction, and cross-border recognition (within the acceding Member States).

In a judgment that will undoubtedly impact what has become fairly common practice when filing notices of intention to appoint an administrator (“NOITA”), the Court of Appeal has held in JCAM Commercial Real Estate Property XV Ltd v Davis Haulage Ltd[1] that a company seeking to give notice of intention to appoint under paragraph 26 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”), and to file a copy o

When you are focused on the day-to-day running of a business, it can be all too easy to miss the warning signs that you may be at risk of insolvency. Often, the signs might be interpreted as a “blip” or a “minor issue” paired with the assumption that the company can trade out of it. In this article, Stephen Young identifies some of the key warning signs that directors should be aware of.

The Insolvency Rules 2016 (the 2016 Rules) have effect from 6 April 2016. A key change introduced by the 2016 Rules is a new approach to decision making, including a deemed consent procedure. The new approach is designed to ease the administrative and cost burden in insolvency proceedings, and is summarised below.

Deemed consent

A set of new insolvency rules are coming into force, as of April 6 2017, as Stephen Young explains in the following bulletin. In short, the previous insolvency rules that have been in force since 1986 no longer apply and instead a whole new set of rules now must be used.

The new Insolvency (England & Wales) 2016 rules will apply to all cases, both existing and new.

In short, the main changes are as follows:

1. All of the Parts and Numbering of the old rules have been completely changed so each type of insolvency has its own new Part.

The UK Court of Appeal recently considered the liability of issuers to secondary market investors under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 (the “1967 Act”) in the case of Taberna Europe CDO II Plc v Selskabet (formerly Roskilde Bank A/S) (In bankruptcy) [2016] EWCA Civ 1262. The Court found that primary and secondary investors could potentially be entitled to rely on online content, such as product presentations, which have been published in a deliberate manner, particularly if the issuer directs investors to the content.