Last September we reported on the Court’s decision on the landlords’ challenge to the Debenhams CVA on grounds of unfair prejudice and material irregularity, in respect of which the landlords have now successfully obtained permission to appeal on various grounds (see below).

Judge Barber has considered the order of priority of payments in an administration and - more specifically - whether the Lundy Granite principle applies to both the rent payable once a company has gone into administration, and to the “top up” obligation requiring the company to replenish a rent deposit, where a landlord had drawn down on the deposit against unpaid rent (Re London Bridge Entertainment Partners LLP (in administration) [2019] EWHC 2932 (CH)).

The Rules

Following an expedited trial, the High Court has rejected an application brought by a group of landlords known as the Combined Property Control Group (“CPC”) to challenge the company voluntary arrangement (“CVA”) proposed by Debenhams Retail Limited (“Debenhams”).

CPC challenged the CVA on five grounds. The judge in the case, Mr Justice Norris, held that four of the five grounds failed and directed certain “Forfeiture Restraint Provisions” be removed from the CVA as a result of the fifth.

The CVA challenge

The landlords’ claim against the Debenhams CVA was put forward on five grounds:

1. Future rent is not a “debt” and so the landlords are not creditors, such that the CVA cannot bind them

REJECTED: The definition of “debt” is broad enough to include pecuniary contingent liabilities, such as future rent.

2. A CVA cannot operate to reduce rent payable under leases: it is automatically unfairly prejudicial

A recent High Court decision considered the duty of Law of Property Act (LPA) receivers when selling secured property to an associated company of the creditor. The LPA receivers were chartered surveyors, appointed by the creditor in respect of a cider factory over which it had security and were alleged to have acted in bad faith by preferring the interests of the creditor over the interests of the debtor company.

The Inner House of the Court of Session has found that, where a business had no realistic prospect of continuing in existence, it was not appropriate to assess whether a property was sold at an undervalue by reference to a forced sale valuation.

The Court’s judgment serves as a valuable reminder of some fundamental principles of insolvency law.

The facts

The new Companies House Register of Overseas Entities (the “OE Register”) became operational and key parts of the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act (“ECTEA”) came into force on 1 August 2022.

The land registration elements of ECTEA have been deferred and will come into force on 5 September 2022 – this second stage of implementation will with effect from such date have an immediate impact on the registration of property acquisitions and new leases and security being taken over those acquisitions/leases.

September 2016 CMS_LawTax_Negative_28-100.eps Enforcing Security over Real Estate and Shares across Europe 2 | Enforcing Security over Real Estate and Shares across Europe 3 Introduction 4 Albania 5 Austria 6 Belgium 7 Bulgaria 8 Czech Republic 9 England and Wales 10 France 11 Germany 12 Hungary 13 Italy 14 Luxembourg 15 Montenegro 16 Netherlands 17 Poland 18 Portugal 19 Romania 20 Russia 21 Scotland 22 Serbia 23 Slovakia 24 Slovenia 25 Spain 26 Turkey 27 Ukraine 28 Contacts Contents 19 practice and sector groups working across offices Ranked 2nd most global law firm in the Am Law 2015 Glob

Summary

The Insolvency Service has released its report on CVAs (the “Report”), which was commissioned in response to the significant concerns raised by the commercial property sector in recent years and the legal challenges launched by landlords against a number of CVAs.

Whilst there is evidence that, especially in the retail market, the number of store closures and resulting empty units is at its lowest level since a peak in 2012, high profile announcements such as that of BHS mean that they are still a reality. The Court has, with this decision, provided a timely reminder of the principles of surrender by operation of law of which landlords, tenants and guarantors should be mindful.

Summary