header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
16 September 2010 / Siobhan Jones
Issue: 7433 / Categories: Features , Landlord&tenant , Property
printer mail-detail

All change for CVAs

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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
Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

EIP—Rob Barker

EIP—Rob Barker

IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Tightening the screws on JCT terminations
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
NLJ this week: Old rules, fresh warnings in employment law
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
NLJ this week: The rise of the ‘ChatGPT client’ rattles the profession
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
NLJ this week: Surrogacy children caught in succession gap
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
NLJ this week: Online safety law at a crossroads
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll