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.

The Pension Protection Fund (PPF) has published guidance on company voluntary arrangements (CVAs), setting out the issues that it expects to be considered and addressed. The new guidance will be relevant to companies who are considering a CVA which could affect a DB pension scheme, and to advisers working with those companies or with pension scheme trustees.

The government has published a consultation paper looking at ways to improve the framework surrounding companies in or approaching insolvency. The policy objective is to reduce the risk of major company failures and their impact on a wider range of stakeholders, including employees and company pension scheme beneficiaries.

In an article that first appeared in the Winter 2017 issue of RECOVERY, Matthew Tait, Partner at BDO, and Matt Hill, Senior Associate at Osborne Clarke, put together a blueprint for practitioners considering turnaround work.

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?

Spanish Congress debates a legislative proposal (Propuesta de Ley) to reinforce the fight against late payment in response to the European Union demand for the correct implementation of the Insolvency Directive (2011/7/EU). This proposal would establish a penalty system against defaulting companies.

As has been widely reported, Carillion companies are being liquidated. This will affect their suppliers and the extended supply chain, including suppliers of contract workers and CIS subcontractors. There will be a lot of focus on debt and enforceability of things like pay when paid clauses (which, contrary to popular belief, are not always enforceable).

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

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