The latest statistics from UHY Hacker Young which reveal the financial difficulties faced by pubs and bars are disappointing and very concerning.
According to the national accountancy firm, insolvencies rose from 280 in 2020/21 to 512 as of the end of 2022. Given the perfect storm caused by rising inflation, the cost-of-living crisis, staff shortages and escalating salary costs, it perhaps isn’t too surprising. Nevertheless, corporate failure is not inevitable and businesses can do something about it.
As with many retail businesses, the Nero Group has been seriously impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic.
The company is the tenant of 619 stores and in November 2020 the directors proposed a Company Voluntary Arrangement, which is a statutory compromise voted on by creditors. The CVA proposal was principally focused on the company’s landlords, seeking to compromise the terms of the leases as to arrears of rent, future rent, service charges and insurance.
The creditors voted in favour of the CVA in December 2020.
The legal challenge (Carraway Guildford (Nominee A) Limited and Others v Regis UK Limited and Others, No. 8276 of 2018) by landlords against a retail company voluntary arrangement (CVA) was accepted by Mr Justice Zacaroli.
- Jurisdiction and unfair prejudice open to review on appeal
First instance decision
Landlords on 10th May lost their legal challenge at first instance against fashion retailer New Look’s use of a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) it put in place to help it restructure its business.
The landlords argued several points of challenge in their original application, most importantly from a legal and commercial perspective that CVA jurisdiction does not extend to complex, differential arrangements.
A balancing act
Creditors with legitimate grounds to challenge scheme or restructuring plan proposals and who assist the court in so doing should not be unduly discouraged by the costs regime. At the same time, frivolous arguments should not be supported with the promise of a costs award without consideration of party’s interests and other factors.
Virgin Active restructuring plans
On 7 February 2020 the Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”), the Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (“FSCS”) issued a joint statement warning FCA-authorised firms and insolvency practitioners to be responsible when dealing with personal data (the “Joint Statement”).
On 7 February 2019, my article entitled “No deal Brexit – impact on insolvency” was published on Lexology. That article was published shortly after the Insolvency (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (the “2019 Regulations”) were made.
On 13 September 2018 the Government issued guidance relating to civil legal cases and insolvency cases where there was a ‘no deal’ scenario: ‘Handling civil legal cases that involve EU countries if there’s no Brexit deal’ (I shall refer to this as the “Notice” in this article).
Regulation (EU) 2015/848 (the “Insolvency Regulation”) states at Recital 23 of its preamble that main insolvency proceedings can be opened in a Member State where a debtor has its centre of main interests (“COMI”). It goes on to state that those proceedings have universal scope and are aimed at encompassing all of the debtor’s assets. The Insolvency Regulation further details at Article 3(1) that a debtor’s COMI is where the debtor conducts the administration of its interests on a regular basis which is ascertainable by third parties.
We are increasingly being asked to advise non EU resident nationals, with cross jurisdictional lives, who wish to take advantage of the IVA regime in England & Wales. A fairly standard scenario we see is this: