header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
16 September 2010 / Siobhan Jones
Issue: 7433 / Categories: Features , Landlord&tenant , Property
printer mail-detail

All change for CVAs

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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
Birketts—Nathan Evans

Birketts—Nathan Evans

Commercial and technology team in Cambridge strengthened by partner hire

Andrew & Andrew Solicitors—Shikha Datta

Andrew & Andrew Solicitors—Shikha Datta

Hampshire firm appoints head of new family department

Latham & Watkins—Sarah Lightdale

Latham & Watkins—Sarah Lightdale

Firm strengthens securities practice with partner return

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas
Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll