Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
Printer Friendly Version
Under what grounds can a company challenge its own company voluntary arrangement (CVA)? Mathew Ditchburn, partner, and Ben Willis, associate, both at Hogan Lovells, who acted for the successful landlord, consider the decision in Re SHB Realisations Ltd (formerly BHS Ltd) (in liquidation); Wright and another (as joint liquidators of SHB Realisations Ltd (formerly BHS Ltd) (in liquidation)) v Prudential Assurance Company Ltd and find it contains some helpful guidance on the operation of CVAs.
Re SHB Realisations Ltd (formerly BHS Ltd) (in liquidation); Wright and another (as joint liquidators of SHB Realisations Ltd (formerly BHS Ltd) (in liquidation)) v Prudential Assurance Company Ltd  EWHC 402 (Ch),  All ER (D) 58 (Mar)
This case serves as a reminder that there are limited grounds to challenge a CVA and a strict timescale within which to do so. While this provides certainty for the company and its creditors, it also means that landlords and others need to be pro-active and act quickly if they wish to challenge the validity of a CVA.
It also clarifies that administrators are liable to landlords for contingent liabilities that are attributable to their period of use of premises. This might include, for example, balancing service charge payments and back-dated rent review uplifts, which administrators are often keen to avoid.
BHS proposed a CVA in a bid to turn around its fortunes. The main creditors affected by the CVA were its landlords who saw rents cut by up to 75%.
Clause 25.9 of the CVA provided that, if terminated, Clause 25.9 ‘compromises and releases effected under the terms of the CVA shall be deemed never to have happened, such that all Landlords…shall have the claims against BHS Limited that they would have had if the CVA Proposal had never been approved’.
The CVA did not terminate automatically in the event of BHS’s administration, but the landlords were entitled to terminate for non-payment of sums due under the CVA.
A month after the CVA was approved, BHS went into administration. The administrators traded from the stores for a period of months, paying reduced rents under the CVA, before eventually folding the business and vacating. BHS then stopped paying rent and one of the landlords terminated the CVA. Liquidation then followed.
The defendant was another landlord. It claimed that, as a result of clause 25.9:
The liquidators applied to court for a direction, arguing that:
The liquidators argued that clause 25.9 imposed a secondary obligation to pay the full rent in the event of a breach of the primary obligation to pay the discounted rent. This, they said, was exorbitant and/or unconscionable and, therefore, an unenforceable penalty.
The court disagreed, deciding that usual contractual principles, including the rule against penalties, do not apply to CVAs. A CVA is a ‘hypothetical’ contract that binds anyone entitled to vote on it because of statute. The only way to challenge a CVA is on one of the limited grounds set out in the Insolvency Act 1986 within 21 days of approval.
Referring to the public policy grounds behind the penalty doctrine, the court also said it was ‘impossible to see how a proposal put forward by or on behalf of the company…can somehow be said subsequently to have oppressed the company in some respect’.
The liquidators’ argument also presupposed that the CVA varied the leases at law, which the court held it did not, both as a matter of construction and because it was not executed by deed.
The court found that there was no breach of the pari passu principle. This was because clause 25.9 did not increase the landlords’ claims against BHS on insolvency. The true position was that the temporary rent concession in the CVA was ‘brought to an end and the original rent…continued to have effect.’
Finally, the court made clear that, for any period during which administrators used leasehold premises, they were liable to pay as an expense ‘all sums payable for the premises in respect of that period, even if they are only contingent or yet to be ascertained at that time’. It did not matter that the liability to pay the full rent for the period was not triggered until after they had vacated.
If you are a LexisPSL subscriber, click the links below for further information on order of payments in administration:
CVAs—landlord issues and remedies (Subscriber access only)
Retail sector insolvency—use of CVAs (Subscriber access only)
Not a subscriber? Find out more about how LexisPSL can help you and click here for a free trial of LexisPSL Restructuring and Insolvency.
First published on LexisPSL Restructuring and Insolvency
Interviewed by Jenny Rayner.
The views expressed by our Legal Analysis interviewees are not necessarily those of the proprietor.
0330 161 1234