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
Kennedys—Samson Spanier

Kennedys—Samson Spanier

Commercial disputes practice bolstered by partner hire

Bird & Bird—Emma Radcliffe

Bird & Bird—Emma Radcliffe

London competition team expands with collective actions specialist hire

Hill Dickinson—Chris Williams

Hill Dickinson—Chris Williams

Commercial dispute resolution team in London welcomes partner

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: What judging really demands
Judging is ‘more intellectually demanding than any other role in public life’—and far messier than outsiders imagine. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC reflects on decades spent wrestling with unclear legislation, fragile precedent and human fallibility
NLJ this week: AI comes for the billable hour
The long-predicted death of the billable hour may finally be here—and this time, it’s armed with a scythe. In a sweeping critique of time-based billing, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, argues in this week's NLJ that artificial intelligence has made hourly charging ‘intellectually, commercially and ethically indefensible’
NLJ this week: Civil procedure—sharp elbows & sharper warnings
From fake authorities to rent reform, the civil courts have had a busy start to 2026. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold surveys a procedural landscape where guidance, discretion and discipline are all under strain
NLJ this week: Getting the facts right in family courts
Fact-finding hearings remain a fault line in private family law. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Rylatt and Robyn Laye of Anthony Gold Solicitors analyse recent appeals exposing the dangers of rushed or fragmented findings
NLJ this week: Sporting justice—at sprint speed
As the Winter Olympics open in Milan and Cortina, legal disputes are once again being resolved almost as fast as the athletes compete. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Ian Blackshaw of Valloni Attorneys examines the Court of Arbitration for Sport’s (CAS's) ad hoc divisions, which can decide cases within 24 hours
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll