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.

A recent case in the UK (Phones 4U Limited -v- EE Limited) serves as a warning to businesses of the unintended, and potentially costly, consequences of issuing inadequate termination notices to contractual counterparties.

Background

McDowell Purcell represented a creditor in a recent application to the High Court where Justice Costello granted an Order for Sale on foot of an equitable charge held by the applicant, over properties of the respondent who had been adjudicated a bankrupt.

Application

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 High Court delivered a stark reminder to personal insolvency practitioners (PIPs) that they serve an integral role in upholding the legitimacy of the bankruptcy process in a judgment delivered on 5 February 2018.

Background

The judgment arose out of an application by the Official Assignee (“OA”) to postpose the automatic discharge of a bankrupt. The OA submitted that the bankrupt had hidden assets from or failed to disclose assets which could have been realised for the benefit of the creditors of her estate.

Introduction

On 29 June 2017 the High Court made an order for costs against the three former directors of Custom House Capital (the “Company”) having already disqualified them from acting as directors for periods in excess of ten years. The judgment was unusual because the order for costs was not just in relation to the legal costs but also for the very significant investigative costs of the Official Liquidator.

Background

In the recent decision of Re JD (a debtor), the High Court upheld a debtor’s challenge to a lender’s decision to reject a Personal Insolvency Agreement (“PIA”) proposal.

Section 115A of the Personal Insolvency Acts 2012- 2015 (“the Acts”) provides a new mechanism by which a debtor may seek the Court’s approval of a PIA notwithstanding its rejection by creditors.

This case is particularly significant as:

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).

Introduction

With the commencement of the Companies Accounting Act 2017 (“2017 Act”) on 9 June 2017, the priority of charges in liquidations has been dramatically altered.

Judicial Development

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