header-logo header-logo

Powerhouse CVA branded unfair

10 May 2007
Issue: 7272 / Categories: Legal News , Property
printer mail-detail

A company voluntary arrangement (CVA) which aimed to remove creditors’ rights under guarantee against a parent company has been deemed invalid by the High Court.

In Prudential Assurance Co Ltd & others v PRG Powerhouse Ltd Mr Justice Etherton held that the CVA Powerhouse had used to escape its UK leases at a fraction of the cost was unfairly prejudicial to the landlords.
He said: “The votes of those unsecured creditors who stood to lose nothing from the CVA, and everything to gain from it, inevitably swamped those of the guaranteed landlords who were significantly disadvantaged.”

Powerhouse proposed a CVA to its creditors, an aspect of which relieved its guarantors of any liability for the rent that remained unpaid and the future rent in respect of its loss-making properties until they were re-let. A sufficient percentage of the company’s other creditors were happy with the provisions of the CVA to outvote the landlords and pass it. This left Powerhouse’s landlords bound by the clause relieving the guarantors of responsibility under their guarantees and powerless to object

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

Hamlins—Maddox Legal

Hamlins—Maddox Legal

London firm announces acquisition of corporate team

Ward Hadaway—Nik Tunley

Ward Hadaway—Nik Tunley

Head of corporate appointed following Teesside merger

Taylor Rose—Russell Jarvis

Taylor Rose—Russell Jarvis

Firm expands into banking and finance sector with newly appointed head of banking

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll