Commercial landlords are disproportionately disadvantaged by CVA rules?
The Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) has come under increasing criticism by commercial landlords and their representatives as putting them at a disadvantage compared with other creditors, so much so that the Insolvency Service commissioned research into its effects.
A CVA is a legal arrangement where agreement among an insolvent or potentially insolvent company’s creditors allows it to defer its debt obligations, to be repaid over a period of time. Where 75% of the creditors, by value, agree to support the company in this regard, the arrangement is designed to save what may otherwise be a viable commercial operation, or a part thereof, of a struggling company.
Once agreement among the creditors is reached, the unsecured creditors are bound by the arrangement, allowing the company to continue trading with its directors still in control. A licensed insolvency practitioner is appointed to monitor the company under the CVA for a period of up to 5 years.
The CVA has proved to be a useful tool to tied an otherwise viable company through a difficult period in its history, with the intention that it will be able to “trade out” of their its current financial difficulties once the directors can get things back under control.
Much criticism comes from the practice of selectively slimming down, particularly in the retail sector, of companies, by closing less profitable outlets and thereby avoiding their long-term lease obligations.
Landlords’ concerns about CVAs
The CVA was introduced into English law by the Insolvency Act 1986. Although it has had its successes, more recently the commercial property sector, particularly through the Covid pandemic, has been raising its concerns about its fairness, particularly in relation to the retail and leisure sectors.
Landlords argue that their debts, particularly rental debts, and how changes can be affecting long-term leases, and the basis on which rents are calculated, are compromised and unfairly affected, in comparison to other creditors.
Criticism of the CVA has been such that the Insolvency Service has been prompted to commission research to gather evidence and report, to help establish the facts and shed more light on this issue.
Commercial landlords have long argued that commonly a scenario develops that will substantially reduce a tenants’ rent payments and crucially, alter lease terms when the CVA action is voted on and approved by all the creditors, most of whom are not financially affected to the extent the landlords are.
The study
The Insolvency Service whittled down a list of 747 of the large companies in the retail, accommodation and food and beverage industries to participate in the research resulting in 59 in the research sample.
The Insolvency Service says it went about the research asking three key questions:
Q1 – How do outcomes for landlords in large business CVAs from either the Retail trade, Accommodation or Food and beverage service activity compare to other creditors?
Q2 – Are landlords equitably treated, compared to other creditors, in large business CVAs from either the Retail trade, Accommodation or Food and beverage service activity?
Q3 – If such a finding is made, [landlords compromised] to identify what specific levers in the framework are causing the issue and how.
It all boils down to one central question of: “Are landlords treated fairly compared to the other creditors in the case of the large business CVAs in the sample?”
The Insolvency Service reached the conclusion that “broadly” yes, landlords are indeed treated fairly by the CVA process. However, there’s a lot more detail here and an argument can be made that it’s not as simple as that, and the sample is relatively small.
One interpretation by Lexology, the international legal update service, was that “commercial landlords are almost twice as likely to have their rights compromised in a CVA than any other class of creditor. In the sample set of CVAs that the researchers considered, property owners were compromised in 93% of cases. The next most compromised class was inter-company creditors at 51%.”
The true level of compromise through the CVA process for property landlords could be much higher than the results of the research and the Insolvency Service report is suggesting. The researchers say themselves that the report “does not tell the full story”.
This is because according to Lexology, it, “focuses solely on the compromise of future rents and not on other losses suffered by property owners, such as conversions to turnover rents and the compromise of rent arrears, service charge and dilapidations.”
The report’s conclusions
The report does conclude that “the overall rate of compromise in relation to landlords is likely to be understated” and that’s because the evidence tends to be skewed by the inclusion of unimpaired “Category A Landlords”.
The overall average compromise for property owners was stated at 43%, considerably less than the 93%, but says the report, “this is an average across all landlords, including those whose debts were not compromised”. The average across compromised “Category B, C and D Landlords” was reported at 64%.
For more detail see:
Company voluntary arrangement research report for the Insolvency Service and
UK company voluntary arrangements: 10 key takeaways for property owners from government research
View Full Article: Commercial landlords are disproportionately disadvantaged by CVA rules?
Post comment
Categories
- Landlords (19)
- Real Estate (9)
- Renewables & Green Issues (1)
- Rental Property Investment (1)
- Tenants (21)
- Uncategorized (11,916)
Archives
- December 2024 (43)
- November 2024 (64)
- October 2024 (82)
- September 2024 (69)
- August 2024 (55)
- July 2024 (64)
- June 2024 (54)
- May 2024 (73)
- April 2024 (59)
- March 2024 (49)
- February 2024 (57)
- January 2024 (58)
- December 2023 (56)
- November 2023 (59)
- October 2023 (67)
- September 2023 (136)
- August 2023 (131)
- July 2023 (129)
- June 2023 (128)
- May 2023 (140)
- April 2023 (121)
- March 2023 (168)
- February 2023 (155)
- January 2023 (152)
- December 2022 (136)
- November 2022 (158)
- October 2022 (146)
- September 2022 (148)
- August 2022 (169)
- July 2022 (124)
- June 2022 (124)
- May 2022 (130)
- April 2022 (116)
- March 2022 (155)
- February 2022 (124)
- January 2022 (120)
- December 2021 (117)
- November 2021 (139)
- October 2021 (130)
- September 2021 (138)
- August 2021 (110)
- July 2021 (110)
- June 2021 (60)
- May 2021 (127)
- April 2021 (122)
- March 2021 (156)
- February 2021 (154)
- January 2021 (133)
- December 2020 (126)
- November 2020 (159)
- October 2020 (169)
- September 2020 (181)
- August 2020 (147)
- July 2020 (172)
- June 2020 (158)
- May 2020 (177)
- April 2020 (188)
- March 2020 (234)
- February 2020 (212)
- January 2020 (164)
- December 2019 (107)
- November 2019 (131)
- October 2019 (145)
- September 2019 (123)
- August 2019 (112)
- July 2019 (93)
- June 2019 (82)
- May 2019 (94)
- April 2019 (88)
- March 2019 (78)
- February 2019 (77)
- January 2019 (71)
- December 2018 (37)
- November 2018 (85)
- October 2018 (108)
- September 2018 (110)
- August 2018 (135)
- July 2018 (140)
- June 2018 (118)
- May 2018 (113)
- April 2018 (64)
- March 2018 (96)
- February 2018 (82)
- January 2018 (92)
- December 2017 (62)
- November 2017 (100)
- October 2017 (105)
- September 2017 (97)
- August 2017 (101)
- July 2017 (104)
- June 2017 (155)
- May 2017 (135)
- April 2017 (113)
- March 2017 (138)
- February 2017 (150)
- January 2017 (127)
- December 2016 (90)
- November 2016 (135)
- October 2016 (149)
- September 2016 (135)
- August 2016 (48)
- July 2016 (52)
- June 2016 (54)
- May 2016 (52)
- April 2016 (24)
- October 2014 (8)
- April 2012 (2)
- December 2011 (2)
- November 2011 (10)
- October 2011 (9)
- September 2011 (9)
- August 2011 (3)
Calendar
Recent Posts
- Landlords’ Rights Bill: Let’s tell the government what we want
- 2025 will be crucial for leasehold reform as secondary legislation takes shape
- Reeves inflationary budget puts mockers on Bank Base Rate reduction
- How to Avoid SDLT Hikes In 2025
- Shelter Scotland slams council for stripping homeless households of ‘human rights’