2018 has been described as “the year of the CVA”, especially in the retail and casual dining sectors. Although company voluntary arrangements can be a useful tool to compromise portfolios of leasehold obligations, there are certain situations where a CVA may be unsuitable.

1. When a full operational and/or financial restructuring is required

The Pension Protection Fund (PPF) has published guidance on company voluntary arrangements (CVAs), setting out the issues that it expects to be considered and addressed. The new guidance will be relevant to companies who are considering a CVA which could affect a DB pension scheme, and to advisers working with those companies or with pension scheme trustees.

2018 has been one tough year on the High Street...

Retail, as a sector, has long been under pressure from increased competition from online retailers, which has resulted in reduced footfall on the High Street, affecting many companies, including many well-known names.

Carlos Sevilleja Garcia v Marex Financial Limited [2018] EWCA Civ.1468

David Lewis QC and Richard Greenberg report on a significant judgment concerning the rule against reflective loss (the “RL Rule”).

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.

The British Property Federation has produced a document to codify CVA best practice with a view to giving guidance to insolvency practitioners on key items landlords will look for in a CVA proposal.

The document is available on the BPF's website and can be found here.

KEY POINTS

The CE-File system made electronic working mandatory for insolvency proceedings in

London, with effect from 25 April 2017. Insolvency filings outside London can continue to be made on paper. Potential users should create a CE-File account and familiarise themselves with the

system as soon as possible. While the system will bring users increased flexibility, including the ability to make filings

Directors may not be able to rely on limitation as a defence to some misfeasance claims, following the Supreme Court's decision in Burnden Holdings (UK) Ltd v Fielding [2018] UKSC 14.

Where directors have obtained an economic benefit from an unlawful distribution they are not entitled to rely on the lapse of time as a defence to any claim brought by the company, held the Supreme Court.

The Court of Appeal has ruled that the court does have jurisdiction to grant a licensee (as opposed to a tenant) relief from forfeiture provided that the licensee has possessory or proprietary rights (Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd v Vauxhall Motors Ltd (formerly General Motors UK Ltd) [2018] EWCA Civ 1100).

Forfeiture and Relief from Forfeiture

TV rental business, Box Clever, was created as a joint venture between Granada (now ITV) and Thorn (now Carmelite).

The Box Clever business was later sold and administrative receivers were subsequently appointed over Box Clever companies.

The Pensions Regulator (“TPR”) issued Financial Support Directives (“FSDs”) against five ITV companies in relation to the Box Clever defined benefit pension scheme. ITV referred the determinations to the Upper Tribunal.