header-logo header-logo

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

Powerhouse CVA branded unfair

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll