Christopher Buckingham acted for the Secretary of State in Re Javazzi Limited (in liquidation) [2021] EWHC 1239 (Ch).
The decision confirms that company voluntary arrangements remain a flexible tool for restructuring leasehold portfolios.
• No rigid test exists for “basic fairness” that requires a landlord to receive at least market rent, or that contractual rent should be interfered with to the minimum extent necessary.
• If a landlord is entitled to terminate the lease and receive a better outcome than in the alternative, any automatic unfairness from changes to the terms of the lease is negated.
• Whether a CVA is unfairly prejudicial depends on all the circumstances of the case.
On Monday, Zacaroli J handed down his eagerly anticipated judgment in Lazari Properties (2) Limited (and others) v New Look Retailers Limited (and others).
The New Look landlords challenged the New Look CVA and raised a number of arguments which some believed could be the end of CVAs as we know them. In particular, the New Look landlords argued that CVAs had gone far beyond the use for which they had been intended and sought to challenge the jurisdictional basis upon which some CVAs are implemented.
The key arguments were that:
In what is likely to be the most significant change to the UK restructuring and insolvency market since the Enterprise Act 2002, the Court has yesterday1 paved the way for restructuring plans under Part 26A to the Companies Act 2006 ("RPs") to be used to compromise the rights of landlords, financial creditors and other unsecured creditors provided the company shows that those creditors are "out of the money". There may even be no need to ask those compromised creditors to vote on the RP.
Landlords of New Look stores have failed in their challenge to a CVA which wrote off rent arrears and imposed turnover rents on hundreds of stores.
Like so many high street fashion retailers New Look was already in a precarious position before the pandemic hit. When its turnover was reduced to nil overnight it projected it would run out of cash without help.
Virgin Active Case - The Verdict
The High Court in London yesterday ruled in favour of Virgin Active's controversial restructuring plan. This is the second example of the court exercising its discretion to sanction a contested plan which sought to rely on the so called cross-class cram down; and the first to affect landlords.
The case, heard by Mr Justice Snowden (who has received praise for his balanced approach throughout the court process) sets the precedent for plans being used to bind landlords that vote against them.
The recent Accountant in Bankruptcy v Peter A Davies case examines how a family home is dealt with following sequestration of an individual. The sheriff's comments about the case suggest there could be room for improvement in the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985, to make the process clearer for everyone involved.
Case background
On Monday, the High Court handed down its decision in (1) Lazari Properties 2 Limited, (2) The Trafford Centre Limited, (3) LS Bracknell Limited and 10 Others and (4) Fort Kinnaird Nominee Limited and 20 Others v (1) New Look Retailers Limited, (2) Daniel Francis Butters and (3) Robert Scott Fishman [2021] EWHC 1209 (Ch) considering the various grounds of challenge raised by the applicants in relation to the New Look CVA. Mr Justice Zacaroli rejected each of the grounds of challenge leaving the New Look CVA intact.
The Part 26A Restructuring Plans (the "Plans") proposed by each of Virgin Active Holdings, Virgin Active Limited and Virgin Active Health Clubs Limited (the "Plan Companies") have been sanctioned by the court. This decision has been eagerly anticipated by the restructuring and insolvency market, struggling tenants and the beleaguered landlord community.
In the hotly anticipated judgment of Mr Justice Zacaroli in the case of Lazari Properties 2 Limited and Ors and New Look Retailers Limited ("New Look") [2021] EWHC 1209 (Ch) New Look has successfully defended a challenge to its CVA on the grounds of jurisdiction, material irregularity and unfair prejudice. The judgment confirms once again that differential treatment of creditors does not on its own establish unfair prejudice but that it will be a matter for determination based on all the circumstances of the case.