Chase Cambria
  • Log in
  • Not a member yet?
go
  • Contact
  • Webmail
  • Archive
 
  • Home
  • Overview
  • Journal Issues
  • Subscriptions
  • Editorial Board
  • Author Guidelines

International Corporate Rescue

Journal Issues

  • Vol 1 (2004)
  • Vol 2 (2005)
  • Vol 3 (2006)
  • Vol 4 (2007)
  • Vol 5 (2008)
  • Vol 6 (2009)
  • Vol 7 (2010)
  • Vol 8 (2011)
  • Vol 9 (2012)
  • Vol 10 (2013)
  • Vol 11 (2014)
  • Vol 12 (2015)
  • Vol 13 (2016)
  • Vol 14 (2017)
  • Vol 15 (2018)
  • Vol 16 (2019)
  • Vol 17 (2020)
  • Vol 18 (2021)
  •         Issue 1
  •         Issue 2
  •         Issue 3
  •         Issue 4
  •         Issue 5
  •         Issue 6
  • Vol 19 (2022)
  • Vol 20 (2023)
  • Vol 21 (2024)
  • Vol 22 (2025)

Vol 18 (2021) - Issue 3

Article preview

Lazari Properties 2 Limited & Ors v New Look Retailers Limited & Ors [2021] EWHC 1209 (Ch)

Will Snowden, Associate, Katharina Crinson, Counsel, and Lindsay Hingston, Partner, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP, London, UK

Synopsis
This highly anticipated judgment is the first of two decisions from the High Court on recent commercial landlord-led challenges to the use of the company voluntary arrangement ('CVA') framework under Part 1 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the 'Act'). At the time of writing, the Court's judgment on the closely related Regis CVA challenge is yet to be handed down, as is the Court's decision on the sanction hearing for the Virgin Active restructuring plan, which involved issues similar to those in this case as regards differential treatment of different categories of landlords and other financial creditors within a single process.
The CVA proposed by New Look Retailers Limited ('New Look') was challenged by certain landlords (the 'Applicants'), on grounds of unfair prejudice, material irregularity and an asserted lack of statutory jurisdiction. The Court dismissed the challenges on all grounds. The Court's dismissal of the unfair prejudice challenge centred on the conclusion, in particular, that differential treatment as between unimpaired and compromised classes will not per se create unfair prejudice, neither will the fact, without more, that the statutory voting majority is obtained through the votes of an unimpaired category of creditors. Comparatively little of the judgment is dedicated to the challenge on material irregularity, which itself was dismissed predominantly on the basis that there is no exact science in the calculation of discounts to be applied to the value of future debt claims for voting purposes.

Buy this article
Get instant access to this article for only EUR 55 / USD 60 / GBP 45
Buy this issue
Get instant access to this issue for only EUR 175 / USD 230 / GBP 155
Buy annual subscription
Subscribe to the journal and recieve a hardcopy for
EUR 730 / USD 890 / GBP 560
If you are already a subscriber
log In here

International Corporate Rescue

"International Corporate Rescue is the ultimate legal and commercial guide through the maze of complex cross border insolvency and restructuring issues."

William Q Derrough, Managing Director and Co-head of Recapitalization & Restructuring Group, Moelis & Company, New York

 

 

Copyright 2006 Chase Cambria Company (Publishing) Limited. All rights reserved.