The Law 9/2015 includes the following novelties:

1.   In Regard to the Insolvency Agreement

Law 9/2015 presents a series of novelties regarding the insolvency agreement, such as:

Put your lender’s hat on. Wouldn’t it be great if you could prevent your borrower from filing bankruptcy in the first place? Unfortunately for lenders, a recent decision demonstrates how hard it is to prevent bankruptcy filings.

Imagine: you are a lender that has loaned substantial sums of money to an individual, secured by real property owned by the borrower. After the borrower defaults and negotiations fail, you seek and obtain the appointment of a receiver. But now litigation ensues—about the loan documents, about contract defaults, about interest rates, about foreign law. After a substantial investment of time and money, your trial date draws closer. At some point during this odyssey, your borrower secretly transfers the real property collateral to a newly-created, single-member LLC.

Phones 4u went into administration on 15 September 2014 following a decision by EE not to renew its contract. At the time of writing, all 560 stores and 160 concessions have been closed, pending a decision by the firm’s administrator whether to continue trading or break the company up in deals with, amongst others, EE and Vodafone.

The Implications of the Willmott Growers Decision

On 4 December 2013 the High Court handed down its decision in Willmott Growers Group Inc v Willmott Forests Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed (In Liquidation)) [2013] HCA 51 (Willmott Growers case), clarifying the scope of a liquidator’s statutory power of disclaimer.

The hair salon Regis announced recently that the company has entered administration. The news might not come as a surprise because the chain, prior to the company’s administration, was subject to a company voluntary arrangement (“CVA”) whose validity was challenged by landlords.

The joint administrator of Regis commented: “trading challenges, coupled with the uncertainty caused by the legal challenge, have necessitated the need for an administration appointment”.

Admission de l’inscription définitive d’une hypothèque judiciaire provisoire malgré la liquidation judiciaire

Cass. Com, 3 mai 2016, n°14-21.556

Aux termes d’un arrêt de principe, la Cour de cassation entérine et confirme la possibilité pour le créancier disposant d’une hypothèque judiciaire provisoire, inscrite avant le jugement d’ouverture, de l’inscrire définitivement après la liquidation judiciaire du débiteur.

Can a CVA bind a landlord in respect of future rents? Is the landlord a creditor in respect of future rent? What about the right to forfeit; can a CVA modify that right? Is compromising rent under a CVA automatically unfair to landlords when other trade creditors are paid in full?

These were some of the points considered by the Court in determining whether the Debenhams’ CVA (which had been challenged by landlords) should fail.

One point of particular interest is whether reducing rents below market value in a CVA is automatically unfair to landlords?

The administrations of BHS and Austin Reed have been well publicised. Both had agreed CVAs before ending up in administration, prompting us to analyse the success rate of the CVA. Between 2009 and 2016, CVAs were entered into by JJB Sports plc, Focus Do It All, Discover Leisure, Blacks, Fitness First, Travelodge, Mamas and Papas, Austin Reed and BHS. Out of these nine companies, only three continue to trade (Fitness First, Travelodge and Mamas and Papas).

There has been an influx of company voluntary arrangements (“CVAs”) in recent times, as retailers fight to rescue their UK high street stores. Retail CVAs accounts for the highest proportion of CVAs at 19%. As more and more CVAs are approved, we consider some of the recent trends seen in the retail sector which showcase the flexibility of a CVA and reflect the demands of landlords whose support is vital to the continuing viability of a business.

What is a CVA?