header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

All change for CVAs

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
16 September 2010 / Siobhan Jones
Issue: 7433 / Categories: Features , Landlord&tenant , Property
printer mail-detail

Siobhan Jones explores the effects of unfair prejudice & “guarantee stripping” in company voluntary arrangements

Company voluntary arrangements (CVAs) have hit the headlines in recent months due to the financial difficulties encountered by relatively high profile retailers. The CVAs proposed by struggling retailers have met with varying degrees of success and a recent case has further limited the scope for companies to use a CVA to enable their guarantors (often a parent company) to avoid liability under the guarantees provided to creditors.

Unfair prejudice

The use of CVAs as a vehicle for “guarantee stripping” has been the subject of much debate in recent years. Guarantee stripping is an example of unfair prejudice which has been of particular concern to creditor landlords whose tenants seek to enter into CVAs which purport to strip away the liabilities of guarantors. A previous high profile case on this point was that of Prudential Assurance Company Ltd & Others v PRG Powerhouse Ltd & Others [2007] EWHC 1002 (Ch), [2007] All ER (D) 21 (May) (Powerhouse).

PRG

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Clyde & Co—Sian Langer & Gemma Parker

Clyde & Co—Sian Langer & Gemma Parker

Firm strengthens catastrophic injury capability with partner promotions

DWF—Dean Gormley

DWF—Dean Gormley

Finance and restructuring team offering expands in Manchester with partner hire

Taylor Rose—Vicki Maflin

Taylor Rose—Vicki Maflin

Firm announces appointment of head of remortgage

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Employment law’s fine margins
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
NLJ this week: Promises broken on non-molestation orders?
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
NLJ this week: Assisted dying under the legal microscope
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
NLJ this week: Failure to deliver in Getty v Stability AI
The long-awaited Getty Images v Stability AI judgment arrived at the end of last year—but not with the seismic impact many expected. In this week's issue of NLJ, experts from Arnold & Porter dissect a ruling that is ‘historic’ yet tightly confined
NLJ this week: Spotlight on the Supreme Court in 2025
The UK Supreme Court may be deciding fewer cases, but its impact in 2025 was anything but muted. In this week's NLJ, Professor Emeritus Brice Dickson of Queen’s University Belfast reviews a year marked by historically low output, a striking rise in jointly authored judgments, and a continued decline in dissent. High-profile rulings on biological sex under the Equality Act, public access to Dartmoor, and fairness in sexual offence trials ensured the court’s voice carried far beyond the Strand
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll