As we head for its most crucial shopping period in the wake of Mothercare and Mamas & Papas collapsing into administration, I make no apologies for revisiting the UK’s retail sector.
Following last month’s Brexit Halloween deadline and with Black Friday, Cyber Monday and Christmas ahead of us retailers have reportedly stockpiled seasonal products earlier than usual but the consumer uncertainty remaining no one knows how much stock will remain unsold in the new year.
The Confederation of British Industry, the country’s leading business lobby group, said retailers’ stock levels compared with the volume of expected sales had risen to the highest point in October since it began compiling retail sales estimates in 1983.
This is against a backdrop of dramatically narrowing profit margins, falling consumer confidence and repeated demands for comprehensive reform of business rates falling on seemingly deaf Government ears.
A new report by the global professional services firm Alvarez & Marsal (A&M), in partnership with Retail Economics, has found that store-based profit margins for the top 150 UK.retailers have more than halved in less than a decade – dropping from 8.8 percent as seen in 2009/10 to 4.1 percent in 2017/18.
This, it says, is the result of increasing operating costs, inflexible lease structures and changing shopping habits. Yet, it concludes that there is still demand for the High Street physical retail experience “presenting opportunities for forward-thinking incumbents, entrepreneurs and investors. Those that collaborate with landlords and local authorities will be the big winners going into the next business cycle”.
But with a December 25th Quarter Day deadline for the payment of quarterly rents, cash flow is likely to be tight for many retailers who won’t get much support from landlords.
Indeed, headwinds are building up for retail landlords in the retail sector such as Intu, the shopping centre owner, which has warned that it will have to raise more money from shareholders. It has said that its rental income has been battered by a wave of controversial retailer restructures, by such retailers as Monsoon and Arcadia, using CVAs (Company Voluntary Arrangements) to negotiate rent reductions.
In addition to rent, rates are also an ongoing problem for retailers. On October 30th the Treasury Committee, a cross-party group of MPs, called for an urgent review of the whole business rates system, saying that it was broken, having outpaced inflation for many years and grown as a share of business taxes, placing an unfair burden on bricks and mortar shops. Not only that, but, it also criticised a backlog of 16,000 appeals against business rate decisions and called for the government’s valuation office to be properly staffed.
This was only the latest in a seemingly endless series of calls for reform, that had come from such bodies as the FSB (Federation of Small Businesses), the British Retail Consortium and others throughout the year, with FSB chairman Mike Cherry warning of a very bleak winter ahead.
With consumer confidence currently at a six-year low according to research by YouGov and the Centre for Economics and Business Research Mr Cherry’s prediction isn’t a surprise.
With an estimated 85,000 jobs having already gone from the retail sector over the last year, and approaching 3,000 more coming after the latest retail closures how likely is it that consumers will rush out and spend during the festive season?
The likelihood of any Government action has, of course, receded into the distance given that politicians are now not sitting, but out on the campaign trail ahead of a General Election on December 12th.
Whether a new government can shift its focus away from the ongoing and ever more tedious Brexit saga and onto more pressing domestic concerns remains a very big question but the party manifestos focus on sectors other than the retail sector which doesn’t bode well for them in the short term.
Category: Voluntary Arrangements – CVAs
Recently in the High Court landlords challenged the validity of the CVA (Company Voluntary Arrangement) that was approved for the High Street Debenhams retail chain.
The store chain had announced that its restructuring plan based on the closure of 50 stores and rent reductions for up to 100 others.
Major shareholder Mike Ashley, owner of Sports Direct, had sought to challenge the CVA after the board of Debenhams rejected his offer to buy the chain for £200 million. His shareholding was wiped out when the company went private as part of the rescue and restructuring deal, which was approved by 80% of its landlords.
Although Ashley withdrew his own challenge to the CVA, he continued by backing a legal challenge from Combined Property Control Group (CPC) as landlords who owned several properties.
According to CMS Law the five grounds of the CPC challenge were:
- Future rent is not a “debt” and so the landlords are not creditors, such that the CVA cannot bind them;
- A CVA cannot operate to reduce rent payable under leases: it is automatically unfairly prejudicial;
- The right to forfeiture is a proprietary right that cannot be altered by a CVA;
- The CVA treats the landlords less favourably than other unsecured creditors without any proper justification;
- There is a material irregularity: the CVA fails to adequately disclose the existence of potential “claw back” claims in an administration.
Items 1, 2, 4 and 5 were rejected by the High Court, although item 3 was upheld, meaning that the landlord retains the right of re-entry and to forfeit a lease and therefore this right cannot be modified by a CVA.
This means that if they choose to, landlords can take back their property, although in the current perilous circumstances in the retail sector it is questionable if this would be in their interests given the difficulties they might have in finding an alternative tenant and their liability for rates even when the property is vacant.
The findings did however leave open the prospect of a challenge over the reduction in the rent value if it could be proven that it was below the current market value.
Given the growth in the use of CVAs to exit unwanted leases and reduce rent in the struggling High Street retail sector, the High Court judgement is to be welcomed, both for those retailers hoping to survive by restructuring their businesses onto a hopefully more sustainable footing by reducing their overheads, and for landlords, who now have some clarity about their position in such cases.
The Government last week published its new draft Finance Bill, which includes the proposal to restore HMRC preferential status as a creditor for distribution in insolvency. This was originally granted in the Insolvency Act 1986 but removed by the Enterprise Act 2002.
In summary, HMRC is currently an unsecured creditor ranking equally with suppliers as trade creditors and unsecured lenders for any pay-out to creditors from an insolvent company. The preference would mean they get paid ahead of unsecured creditors leaving less or nothing for most creditors whose support is necessary when restructuring a company.
There had already been considerable consternation expressed by insolvency practitioners and investors after Chancellor Philip Hammond announced the proposal in the Spring, but it seems the Government has decided to press on making only a light amendment to the effect that preferential status will not apply to insolvency proceedings commenced before 6 April 2020.
The change in HMRC to preferential status will apply to VAT and PAYE including taxes or amounts due to HMRC paid by employees or customers through a deduction by the business for example from wages or prices charged such as PAYE (including student loan repayments), Employee NICs and Construction Industry Scheme deductions.
It will remain an unsecured creditor for other taxes such as corporation tax and employer NIC contributions.
The consultation period for the Bill ends on 5 September 2019 and, not surprisingly, there have already been criticisms of the HMRC preferential status element of the bill, not least as reported in the National Law Review:
“Unfortunately for businesses and lenders, this does not address real concern about the impact of this change on existing facilities and future lending,” it says.
It points out that preferential debts are paid after fixed charges and the expenses of the insolvency but before those lenders holding floating charges and all other unsecured creditors.
Accountancy Age also reports on reactions from the Insolvency trade body R3’s president Duncan Swift, who described the Bill’s publication as “shooting first and asking questions later”.
He said: “This increases the risks of trading, lending and investing, and could harm access to finance, especially for SMEs. This means less money is available to fund business growth and business rescue, and, in the long term, could mean less tax income for HMRC from rescued or growing businesses. It’s a self-defeating policy.”
The article also includes comments from Andrew Tate, partner and head of restructuring at Kreston Reeves: “The introduction of this in April 2020 will be interesting,” said Kreston Reeves’ Tate. “The banks will have to change the criteria on which they base their lending to businesses in the light of this new threat, but will they also reassess the amounts they have lent to existing customers?
Is HMRC preferential status the death knell for CVAs?
CVAs (Company Voluntary Arrangements) have traditionally been the route whereby unsecured creditors could have some say, and receive an enhanced pay-out, when a business becomes insolvent and seeks to restructure its balance sheet in order to carry on trading and manage its debts.
Instigated by the directors, approval of a CVA requires 75% of unsecured creditors where the payment terms are binding on any dissenting creditors providing they are less than 25%. Generally, the earlier a business enters a CVA the better, although they can be used as a means of dealing with a minority creditor who has lodged a Winding Up Petition (WUP) in the courts.
CVAs generally involve a payment to creditors which must be distributed by creditor ranking where currently HMRC gets paid the same as trade creditors but under the proposals HMRC will be paid first, leaving considerably less for trade creditors whose support is needed as ongoing suppliers.
CVAs have been a valuable insolvency tool for saving struggling retailers, most recently Monsoon/Accessories, Arcadia (owned by Philip Green) and earlier Debenhams, Mothercare, Carpetright and New Look.
But there have been signs of creditors’ disenchantment with the CVA mechanism when used for retail chains, notably from landlords, who stand to lose significant revenue if they agree to reduce their rents as part of the CVA agreement.
Arcadia, in particular, struggled to reach agreement when landlord Intu, owner of several large shopping arcades, said it was not prepared to accept rent cuts averaging 40% across Arcadia Group shops in its centres. In the end the deal was agreed after landlords were promised a share of the profits during the CVA period. This is an example of the flexibility of CVAs and of how they can benefit creditors if a business is to be saved.
It is a dilemma for landlords in particular, but on the whole they seem to have come to the view that some revenue going forwards is better than none, given that there is reducing demand for High Street Retail space not least because of the sky-high business rates and dwindling footfall from shoppers.
However, it is very likely, in my view, that this latest move by the Government to restore HMRC preferential status, could just tip the balance in making the CVA ineffective as a restructuring tool since the lion’s share of available money will be paid to HMRC.
My blog earlier in the year (17 May) asked whether the use of CVAs was “a triumph of hope over reality” as they had been increasing noticeably in the High Street retail sector, which has suffered an escalating rate of insolvencies.
A CVA (Company Voluntary Arrangement) is generally used to help a company in financial difficulties by restructuring its balance sheet and reorganising its operations to survive and trade its way out of insolvency. A key aspect of the financial restructuring is reaching agreement with creditors for payment of a lump sum or regular payments over a defined period which is typically three to five years where the payments may be less than the amount owed.
Instigated by the directors, approval of a CVA requires 75% of unsecured creditors where the payment terms are binding on any dissenting creditors providing they are less than 25%. Generally, the earlier a business enters a CVA the better, although they can be used as a means of dealing with a minority creditor who has lodged a Winding Up Petition (WUP) in the courts.
It is too early to say whether this latest crop of retail-related CVAs will succeed or terminate early, but R3, the trade body for the insolvency profession, has published a comprehensive, 90-page, report that examined 552 CVAs started in 2013 to determine success and failure rates and analyse the reasons behind them.
It found that CVA use was “dominated by SMEs, with 514 of the 552 companies reviewed classified as small (or micro) based on Companies House records.” Of these the early termination (generally failure) rate was 65.2%, with early termination in certain sectors dominating: Construction (64.8%), Repair of motor vehicles (73.6%), Manufacturing (66.2%) and Administrative and Support Services (70.5%).
The research also conducted interviews with creditors of companies involved in CVAs, to add some depth to its findings.
What are the main reasons for early termination or failure of CVAs ?
As I said in my earlier blog a CVA will only work if the CVA proposals and any agreed modifications are realistic, achievable and sustainable. Essentially my argument was that most CVAs need fundamental change based on a reorganising the business and often the business model.
The R3 research tends to support my view; its findings are summarised as:
The viability of the terms of the CVA agreed at its outset (or subsequently varied) was often questionable.
Often directors did not implement necessary changes or failed to identify and tackle fully the problems identified in the CVA.
Companies failed to make regular contributions and those contributions that were made simply covered the costs of the CVA process.
Some CVAs returned very little to creditors over their lifetime; either because contribution payments were repeatedly missed or because contributions were only sufficient to cover the costs of the process.
HMRC was seen as the most engaged creditor and the one most likely to vote against a CVA whether for policy or commercial reasons.
Creditors also questioned the length of some CVAs, suggesting that five years was too long, and the competence and objectivity of the nominee(s) – usually an Insolvency Practitioner – overseeing the process.
In 2016 the Government launched a consultation on proposed changes to the insolvency regime, which included a mandatory pre-insolvency moratorium to give time for the details of a CVA to be defined and mandatory protection for suppliers.
Given R3’s research findings and the policy intention of a greater focus on helping businesses to restructure and survive I would argue that it is now time for action to improve and refine the insolvency regime.
The missing research into CVAs
My own assumption about CVA failures focuses on a lack of realism when considering the operational reorganisation necessary to achieve a viable business and then the lack of experience with implementation. The issue therefore is who is best placed to help the directors given that CVA proposals are the directors’ proposals.
I have for some time advocated a distinction between those who prepare and implement CVA proposals and those who act as Nominees and Supervisors of the CVA. All too often CVA proposals are prepared by the Nominee albeit in consultation with the directors. Setting aside the conflict of interests of an insolvency practitioner developing a plan that they will then police, the issue is one of who is best placed to plan and implement change to achieve a viable business. The skills and experience needed for this are more to do with start-ups and investment which are rare among insolvency practitioners.
Replacing directors might seem an obvious answer and in larger companies this may be the right one but I would advocate that CVAs for owner-managed SMEs need independent turnaround specialists.
For those interested in learning more about how to achieve a successful CVA, you might like a copy of my free guide, please follow the link: Guide to Company Voluntary Arrangements.
Mothercare has reported today that it is “in a perilous financial position”.
It seems that rarely a week goes by on the High Street when yet another retailer or restaurant chain announces that it is seeking to restructure its business by entering into a CVA (Company Voluntary Agreement) with creditors.
With footfall on the High Street plummeting, by 6% in March and 3.3% in April, while rents have continued to rise, trading conditions are continuing to be challenging, to put it mildly.
The inexorable shift to online shopping can account for some of this, but there are still retailers that have weathered the storm by developing more agile business models, often by combining online and in-store shopping, by making it easy to “click and collect” or by providing a great in-store experience.
Among the retailers that have announced that they will use a CVA as part of a restructure alongside divesting themselves of under-performing stores and food chains have been BHS, Toys R Us, Byrons, New Look, Prezzo, Select, Carpetright, House of Frazer and now Mothercare.
What are the attractions of a CVA?
Although the CVA is an insolvency process, unlike all the others it can be used to save companies. The others involve the eventual closure of the company.
A CVA requires the support of a majority of creditors who are offered better prospects for being paid than the alternative of closing down the company.
This is likely to be welcomed by a business’ employees who keep their jobs and those landlords and suppliers who keep a customer.
Restructuring provides the chance for a business to raise further capital and also the opportunity to renegotiate onerous contracts, such as leases to agree rent reductions. From the landlords’ point of view a CVA means they can continue to receive some rent instead of being left with empty buildings for which they will need to find new tenants in a declining market.
From the viewpoint of the struggling business, it offers scope for reorganising the business to address the underlying issues that caused the problems and put it on a more sustainable footing, although they may need the help of a restructuring and turnaround adviser.
Despite the attractions and approval of a CVA, many businesses subsequently fail due to a lack of fundamental change to the organisation and business model as all too often the CVA is simply used for financial restructuring to write down debts and get rid of onerous obligations. It is rarely used as an opportunity to turn around the business.
Key to a successful CVA is the underlying business model
Toys R Us and BHS are perhaps the most high-profile examples of CVAs that failed. Both initially entered into CVAs but shortly after had to admit defeat with Administrators closing down each business.
Clearly, the terms of the CVA are crucial to a successful restructuring effort. It is a binding agreement between a company and those to whom it owes money.
This means that the directors must be honest with themselves about the problems and must take advice from experienced advisers, who will have carried out an in-depth and detailed look at every aspect of the business to identify what can be saved and what cannot.
Crucially for CVAs to succeed, they need to be realistic in terms of retaining debt that can be serviced, including any CVA contributions, but the underlying business needs to be viable with sufficient profits and cash flow to justify survival. If these cannot be achieved they will fail.
It is often argued that banks’ and lenders’ impatience gets in the way of attempts to restructure and turn around businesses that might otherwise have a chance of survival.
This short-term thinking means that they are wary about agreeing to the use of Company Voluntary Arrangements (CVAs) to allow for the survival of insolvent businesses in a way that will benefit them as well as other stakeholders.
Clearly, banks and some creditors are dubious about the merits of CVAs, as in the current case of UK Toys R Us, whose creditors are due to vote on a proposed CVA this coming Thursday, December 21. If approved 26 stores will be closed and up to 800 employees made redundant. The rest of the business, however, will be saved and all creditors will be better off.
The Toys R Us situation is complex, and questions are being asked about the state of its pension fund, in particular by the Government’s Pensions Protection Fund (PPF) who are threatening to reject it, unless the company pays £9 million into the company pension fund. This might raise questions about preference, but I am sure the lawyers will deal with that. There are also questions about the tripling the remuneration for 2014 to 2016 for its former boss and an alleged waiver of loans to a company in the British Virgin Islands.
The other side of the argument is that CVAs allow businesses to implement plans for restructuring their finances and reorganising their operations to become viable without pressure from creditors. In turn CVAs result in fewer business collapsing and the preservation of more jobs.
This was the argument put by both the EU and the UK in 2016 in proposing the introduction of a three-month moratorium to allow insolvent companies to put together plans for restructuring as part of a review of current insolvency arrangements.
A similar argument was put earlier this month by Harold Tillman, former British Fashion Council chairman, when he called for US Chapter 11-style laws to give companies some breathing space.
The question is, would such protection result in both struggling and Zombie companies being restructured in a way that will benefit the economy?
A CVA, a Company Voluntary Arrangement, is a binding agreement between a company and those to whom it owes money (creditors).
It can allow a company in difficulty to carry on trading, by proposing affordable, realistic and manageable repayment terms to creditors and depends on the company’s proposals and what is finally agreed. It may also include provision for some of a company’s debts to be written off and will usually include a plan for restructuring the company.
The directors formally agree that the company should continue to trade and propose a CVA to creditors.
A CVA proposal is prepared by the directors, normally with the help of turnaround advisers, and then sent to the Company’s creditors along with an independent report on it by a licensed insolvency practitioner acting as Nominee and Convenor of a decision procedure through which creditors are invited to consider and vote on the proposal.
Creditors may respond to the proposal, either by accepting it, accepting it with modifications or rejecting it. Their votes are counted; 75% by value of all those voting, and 50% by value of all ‘non-associated’ creditors voting, must accept the proposals and modifications for a CVA to be approved.
The Nominee/Convenor will also convene a physical meeting of shareholders, to take place after the creditors’ decision procedure. The meeting of shareholders will decide whether to accept or reject the CVA by simple majority; however if they reject a CVA proposal already approved by creditors, the CVA is still approved.
A CVL, Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation, on the other hand, is a process by which the directors of an insolvent company can close it down without involving a court procedure and like a CVA, the CVL procedure is defined by the Insolvency Act 1986.
The directors formally agree that the company should cease to trade and propose the CVL to shareholders, and will also propose a liquidator to be appointed. At least 75% of the shareholders must approve the company be placed into liquidation, and over 50% must agree on who should be the liquidator.
The directors will also propose a liquidator to creditors via a decision procedure – either a virtual meeting, where creditors are invited to log on or call into a meeting and vote on who is liquidator, or deemed consent, where creditors are told by the directors who they want the liquidator to be, and will be given a deadline by which they can lodge an objection.
In both cases, the company is insolvent but the difference is the crucial test of its situation and whether with restructuring it can survive to emerge from insolvency in a way that will improve the position for creditors.
In both cases, also, the directors of the company should seek advice from a qualified professional, such as a turnaround professional or insolvency practitioner, to ensure they are abiding by their director duties, the legal obligations that all directors must adhere to and that are designed to ensure that their actions and decisions are in the best interests of the creditors and the company in that order.
Ultimately, the directors have to decide, with advice, realism and honesty, whether their company’s insolvency can be rectified with the right measures to return it to profitability, or whether the situation is irretrievable and the only solution is to cease to trade and liquidate the assets.
In summary, a CVA is a formal procedure for restructuring the balance sheet as one of many tools that can be used to save a company while a CVL is an efficient procedure for closing down a company.
The latest corporate insolvency statistics released by the Insolvency Service for Q3 (July to September) show 3,201 liquidations slightly increasing by 2.2% from the previous quarter while 75 CVAs show a significant decline by 30.6% from Q2. The number of liquidations is broadly at the lowest level over the last 30 years since the previous peaks of 5,110 liquidations in Q1 of 2009 and 6,332 in Q1 of 1992.
Despite the above statistics which might suggest businesses are doing well, research carried out in mid-October by Pinsent Masons among Insolvency Practitioners (IPs) and published in Insolvency Today found that two thirds of the insolvency profession believe Brexit will contribute to an increase in the number of business failures in the UK over the next 12 months.
Uncertainty about the future is not the only pressure looming over businesses.
Arguably, loose monetary policy and low interest rates maintained by the Bank of England post the 2008 Great Recession may have preserved the life of many zombie companies. But given the increase in inflation revealed last month, and the forecasts of more to come, it may be that there will be no further room for interest rate reductions. Indeed, interest rates look likely to start rising, which might benefit savers but not businesses. Indeed, rising inflation combined with declining profits that many businesses are reporting raise the spectre of stagflation. Insolvencies can’t be far behind.
What other factors may affect business insolvencies?
Recent criticism of Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England, by some members of the Government has led to concern about their relationship which leads to further uncertainty. While the Governor has announced that he will stay on for an extra year beyond his 2018 term it isn’t the full three years option that would have reassured the money markets.
Business confidence is key for the economy since it is a prerequisite for medium and long term investment. Investment in turn improves productivity which in turn justifies higher wages which leads to a higher standard of living. The focus on employment has overlooked the quality of jobs and prospects for employees to share in the spoils of improved productivity.
It remains to be seen how the forthcoming Christmas trading period will unfold and whether this, combined with new business rates which come into effect from April 2017 will expose the retail and hospitality sectors and their dependence on people having a level of disposable income.
In our view the signs are not looking good for those UK businesses with high overheads and low margins and those that have hung on since 2008 but still have high levels of debt to service.
A Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) is a mechanism for an insolvent business to continue trading by paying off its debts out of future profits over a period of time providing it has the consent of 75% of creditors.
Many CVAs are structured to run for a five-year period with monthly payments throughout that time.
Generally, they cannot be varied during the first 12 months, mainly due to a standard modification that is a condition for approval by HMRC’s Voluntary Arrangement Service (VAS).
However, there is scope for varying the original terms of a CVA by making a subsequent proposal to creditors for early termination after the initial 12 months. Like the original CVA this requires 75% approval of creditors but it can involve offering revised terms, such as less money now rather than that offered over 5 years.
If such a variation is likely to be approved by creditors the business and its shareholders will need to be in a position to raise a lump sum either by borrowing or by attracting further investors.
The benefits of an early exit from a CVA to the company
The business will benefit from paying less money as a proportion of its debt with more being written off. The effect of this will have the additional benefit of a stronger balance sheet post CVA.
Early termination will also free the company from its monthly obligation and as a result improve its cash flow.
Once clear of the CVA it will be in a better position to pursue more aggressive fund-raising and growth strategies and will be able to resume paying dividends to shareholders.
The benefits of an early exit from a CVA to creditors are mainly that they will receive cash sooner, rather than waiting for a longer period and receiving their money in small increments. They also avoid the risk that the CVA might fail.
The question is why more businesses do not take advantage of the option for an early CVA exit. One possible explanation is that the Insolvency Practitioner (IP), who may have been an adviser prior to the CVA, becomes a supervisor representing creditors and therefore is no longer an adviser. Another may be that early termination stops the supervisor earning their fees.
We believe that IPs who take formal appointments such as acting as nominee and supervisor of a CVA should be independent throughout and therefore should not act as advisers to the company since they are required to represent the creditors. Furthermore, they should insist companies have independent advisers who are best placed to assist on matters such as considering options for the early termination of CVAs. In this way IPs can avoid a conflict of interest.
It is possible to get a Winding-Up Petition dismissed even when a business is insolvent and does not have the funds to pay off the creditor(s) who have brought the matter to court.
If a company is insolvent and therefore unable to pay its debts on time, it may still be a viable business with a perfectly good product or service to sell.
A review of the accounts, the cash flow, the processes and scope for restructuring and other initiatives to improve profits will need to be carried out by a turnaround specialist who will also prepare an appropriate turnaround plan.
The turnaround plan forms the basis of demonstrating viability such that it is possible to persuade creditors to accept deferred payments.
The turnaround plan is incorporated into a formal proposal to creditors for a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA). In addition to the turnaround plan, a CVA Proposal will include proposals for debt repayment and in some cases for debt write-off.
A CVA is a formal proposal where the process has to be carried out in defined steps to comply with the Insolvency Act and should only be done with the help of a Turnaround or Insolvency Practitioner. While approval is required from 75% of the creditors who vote, it is arguably in the creditors’ interests to agree such an arrangement as they are more likely to get their money than they would be if the company were Wound-Up.
If pursuing a CVA while a Winding-Up Petition is outstanding, this can be adjourned to allow time for the CVA Proposal to be prepared and the formal process to be followed but any adjournment will leave little time for delay so again specialist help is needed.
Once a CVA is approved the Winding-Up Petition is normally dismissed.
In summary a CVA offers the opportunity for an insolvent company to survive a Winding-Up Petition.
You can find out more about Winding-Up Petitions and CVAs in the free articles that are available online in the ‘K2 Knowledge Bank’ or via App Stores in the ‘Turnaround’ App.
A Winding-Up Petition need not be the end of a business, but it does require prompt and decisive actions if the business is to survive.
Given that a Petition is usually served when a creditor, be it a supplier or HMRC, has run out of patience, a review of both the financial position and the future prospects is necessary before considering the options for dealing with the Petition. There are several.
When a company’s financial position and cash flow forecasts are dire it is not likely to have the funds to pay off the debt such that financial restructuring is often needed if the business is to be saved.
In addition, the cause of the financial situation is often the business model where an operational reorganisation is also often needed if the business is to survive.
Both the review and implementing change are not something to be undertaken without experience where the help of a turnaround expert is necessary.
Turnaround experts, also called Company Doctors or Restructuring Advisers, will be able to put together a strategy to deal with the immediate need to answer to the court on the required date, will be able to advise on what you are legally obliged to do and will help you to plan a strategy for the future of the business.
There are three main options for dealing with the first hearing of a Winding-Up Petition.
If the business believes that it does not owe the amount stated in the Petition, it can dispute the debt and ask for the petition to be withdrawn and apply to court to stop it being published in the London Gazette. However, any dispute needs to be credible, and supported by evidence that will be examined as part of the directions (dispute) procedure.
If the review identifies a viable business but the Petition debt cannot be paid before it is heard then a long-term payment plan may be best using a CVA (Company Voluntary Arrangement). CVAs require consent of a requisite majority of creditors and can also be used to write off a portion of the debt but all too many fail because they are not based on a turnaround plan that is prepared by a suitably experienced adviser.
While there are other options these are covered in the CVA Guide and free articles that are available online in the ‘K2 Knowledge Bank’ or via App Stores in the ‘Turnaround’ App.
A CVA (Company Voluntary Arrangement) is an agreement that allows an insolvent company to survive with the consent of 75% of unsecured creditors to reschedule and possibly write down debt to a level that is affordable.
As such it can be a useful vehicle for both creditors and the business concerned, offering the creditors the chance of a better return on their money than they would perhaps expect from the company being wound up.
A CVA essentially involves a proposal to creditors by the company directors, sponsorship of the proposal by an Insolvency Practitioner (IP) as Nominee, and upon approval monitoring by an IP as Supervisor. The preparation of the proposal is often done by or at least with the assistance of an Adviser who has experience of CVAs.
There are a number of issues with IPs drafting CVA proposals which may be the reason that so many fail, approximately 70% I am given to understand. One major issue is the lack of fundamental change to effect a turnaround of the company. This is understandable given that IPs can rarely justify their hourly rate approach to charging for sorting out the causal factors that contributed to the insolvency.
Another issue is the inherent conflict of interests between the Adviser who acts on behalf of the company, and the Supervisor who represents creditors. The Adviser drafts the terms which include a proposed basis for the Supervisor’s fees and also whether the Supervisor benefits from a failure of the CVA. I have seen examples of uncapped Supervisors’ fees being far greater than estimated, leaving insufficient funds to pay a fixed percentage dividend to creditors such that the CVA failed, despite the contributions being paid into the CVA as projected in the proposal as drafted by the same IP as Adviser.
The above reasons alone are sufficient to challenge the revised proposals to Statement of Insolvency Practice 3 as set out in SIP 3.2.
I would suggest that an IP can be either an Adviser or Supervisor, but never both for the same company.
Zombie companies will at some time need to confront three fundamental problems before they can achieve growth: 1. how to fund growth; 2. how to repay debt; and 3. how to service interest when rates rise.
Provided that a zombie company can generate profits on an EBITDA basis (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization), it has a number of options for resolving these problems as a pre-requisite for growth.
Options include negotiating a partial debt write-off, a pre-pack sale via Administration or a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA).
From the suppliers’ viewpoint a growing business offers the prospect of increased profits from increased supplies. From the existing lenders’ viewpoint profitable growth means that non-performing debts can be repaid. From a new investor’s viewpoint, new money can be used to fund growth rather than replace existing debt. From the company’s viewpoint growth inspires confidence in the future prospects of the business.
Given the benefits, it makes sense for zombie companies to get help from restructuring experts who are familiar with these options.
This shocking story in the Daily Telegraph did not name the insolvency firm who built managed to charge a staggering £500,000 for the administration of a small company with 40 employees, see http://tinyurl.com/jwzlcmc.
It appears that secured lenders pulled the plug on this small shopfitting business, presumably to recover their secured loan. The article refers to 10p in the £1 being paid to unsecured creditors.
Given that secured loans are paid ahead of the insolvency fees and that these are paid ahead of unsecured creditors, then this business had significant assets. While the fees will have been justified as representing the time and costs incurred in performing their duties, administration fees also need to be proportionate. Stories like this don’t do the insolvency profession any favours.
Insolvency firms will always justify any adopted procedure and its associated fees but sometimes we might question whether they are justifiable. If there were sufficient funds in the business to pay such fees then why wasn’t an effort made to restructure and save it such as by using the much less expensive CVA (Creditors’ Voluntary Arrangement) procedure?
Indeed who was advising the directors and shareholders? Too often directors make the mistake of trusting the advice of an insolvency practitioner who is normally working for the secured or unsecured creditors. They rarely ever appoint their own advisors.
All too often a company in difficulty is closed down rather than being restructured. In most cases everyone loses out: directors, shareholders, unsecured creditors and employees.
The only “winners” in an administration are the insolvency firm and the secured creditor that appointed them.
When an SME encounters cash flow difficulties and cannot pay its bills many owners assume that their business is bust and should close.
It does not have to be the case. If the core of the business of a company is offering a genuinely useful and saleable product or service, it can normally be saved.
A detailed look at cash flow and accounts is the first step in the process of turning around a struggling business although this needs the help of a business doctor plus commitment, realism and honesty on the part of its owners.
The business doctor will help to identify the profitable activities that should be saved and also has a number of techniques in the toolbox to help deal with the pressing debts that impact on cash flow.
An increasingly useful tool provides a way of dealing with debt by reaching agreement with creditors to repay all or part of the debt in an affordable way that allows the business to focus on building its strengths for the future.
This is a Company Voluntary Arrangement also referred to as a CVA. The CVA is a binding, formal agreement that is agreed with creditors but needs the help of a business doctor or turnaround adviser. To find out more, K2 Business Rescue has published a useful guide to the steps that need to be taken: K2 CVA Guide 2013. A copy along with other useful guides is available as a free download via the Resources section on the K2 website.
Accountants often advise clients to use directors’ loan accounts as a device to help minimise their personal tax liabilities. However, be warned, they only work when the directors are also shareholders and the company is making profits.
Essentially they involve the directors borrowing money from their company and drawing only a minimum salary through their company’s payroll. The loan account is paid off by declaring a dividend and this is a legal way for directors to minimise their personal tax and it avoids having to pay employee and employer NI contributions.
This is fine when a company is profitable but it can become a problem if the company does not have sufficient profits as distributable reserves that can be used to clear the loan.
We are coming across increasing numbers of companies that have not made a profit and where the loan cannot be cleared, leaving the directors effectively owing money to the company.
This can be a serious problem if the company is hoping to reach a Time to Pay (TTP) agreement with HMRC to defer payment of corporation tax, PAYE or VAT because HMRC generally stipulates that such loans are repaid as a pre-condition of approval.
Similarly, when proposing a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) or when a company becomes insolvent, the appointed administrator or liquidator will most likely ask the director(s) to repay the loan. Before approving a CVA, experienced creditors particularly HMRC also tend to demand repayment of directors’ loans.
It is often forgotten that such attempts to reduce tax carry the risk of creating a huge personal liability. To avoid it, we recommend that such dividends are declared in advance so as to avoid a loan or at least regularly to avoid building up a huge directors’ loan account. This avoids the normal practice of waiting until long after year end when the annual accounts are prepared, during which time the company may incur losses that mean dividends cannot subsequently be declared.
A further note of caution relates to any directors’ loan account outstanding at the company year end, which will be highlighted to HMRC in the accounts. Despite any intention to reduce the tax liability, tax legislation seeks to limit the benefit by imposing a section 455 CTA 2010 tax liability (under Corporation Tax Act 2010, formerly s419 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988). While this tax can be recovered when the loan is subsequently repaid by the director, whether in cash or as a dividend, it triggers a significant tax liability on the company.
Many businesses are overburdened with debt and desperate for ways to deal with pressure from banks, HMRC and other creditors. All too often they are prepared to pay off old debt by taking on new debt which leaves them vulnerable to unscrupulous lenders.
Prior to 2008, interest-only loans and overdrafts were a common method of funding, and were reliant on being able to renew facilities or refinancing.
Like many interest-only loans, an overdraft is renewed, normally on an annual basis, but it is also repayable on demand. What happens when the bank doesn’t want to renew the overdraft facility? With the economic climate continuing to be volatile and uncertain and banks under intense pressure to improve their own balance sheets, they are increasingly insisting on converting overdrafts to repayment loans and interest-only finance is disappearing.
This has created a vacuum for alternative sources of funding to enter the market where distinguishing between the credible salesman and the ‘snake oil’ salesman can be very difficult. Desperate businesses are desperate often try to borrow money and become more vulnerable to what at first sight seem to be lenders that can offer them alternative funding solutions that the banks cannot.
Generally the advice is to beware, as the recent eight-year prison sentence handed to “Lord” Eddie Davenport illustrates. The charges related to a conspiracy to defraud, deception and money laundering, also referred to as “advanced fees fraud”.
The court found Davenport and two others guilty in September. Meanwhile a large number of businesses had paid tens of thousands of pounds for due diligence and deposit fees for loans that never materialised and left victims even deeper in debt. The case only became reportable in October, when restrictions were lifted.
Many businesses just want to survive and are trading with no plan or in some cases no prospect for repaying debt. In such instances they should be considering options for improving their balance sheet by reducing debt. Options might include swapping debt for equity, or debt forgiveness by creditors or setting up a CVA (Company Voluntary Arrangement).
269 Company Winding Up Petitions are due to be heard in the High Court this coming Monday, 19th September where the list is still dominated by HMRC petitions.
None of the Companies listed are well known and unusually there are no football clubs listed however one with the name Three Merry Lads Ltd sounds like an interesting business.
Since introducing our handholding service for directors dealing with a Winding Up Petition, it is unusual for K2 not to have anyone to take along on Monday. We like to take directors to the High Court in London several weeks before their company’s Petition is heard so they know what to expect, but we continue to be surprised that so many reject the offer of this free service.
If you know anyone dealing with a Winding Up Petition or have a client who would like to come along to the Companies Winding Up Court on Monday or indeed any Monday do get in touch, call over the weekend if you want to join us on Monday 19th.
We love it whan a petition is dismissed following approval of a CVA.
The latest Insolvency stats suggest that Zombie Businesses are holding back the UK Economy.
A summary of the Q2 2011 UK insolvency statistics shows: Compulsory Liquidations up; Voluntary Liquidations down; Administrations down and CVAs static.
Against a background of slowing growth over the last three quarters of the UK economy, perhaps the picture of what has been going on is becoming clearer.
Unlike most insolvency and turnaround practitioners, I do not believe that we will soon be busy restructuring the large number of over-leveraged businesses.
I believe businesses are putting off restructuring and will do so for as long as possible, at least while the economy is uncertain. Historically insolvencies have increased during the upturn after the bottom of a recession, when business prospects can be predicted. Right now it is not clear if we have reached the bottom and if there will be any growth, let alone how much, or if the market will flatline for some time.
One set of figures, the increase in compulsory liquidations, does indicate a level of frustration over companies not taking action to deal with their debts. Creditors are becoming impatient with directors who are putting off restructuring and starting to force their hand by issuing a winding up petition. But even these figures are very low.
The tragedy is that without restructuring, a great many so called ‘Zombie businesses’, lack optimism to plan for the future. They have run down their stock levels, cut staff to the bone, do limited marketing, are not investing nor looking for growth opportunities let alone looking abroad and are not laying foundations for their future.
The lack of optimism is resulting in quality and service levels being in decline and as a result they are holding back economic recovery because they are not investing in it.
Many insolvent companies are being run to avoid the triggering of personal guarantees given by directors and owners.
Most personal guarantees are provided to secured creditors such as a bank to cover loans or overdrafts that are already protected by a debenture which provides for a fixed and floating charge over the company’s assets. In such cases the personal guarantee is often only triggered by liquidation when the bank is left with a shortfall.
In view of the above I am astonished how many directors plough on, stretching payments to HMRC and extending unsecured creditor liabilities without fundamentally improving their company’s financial situation via a company voluntary arrangement (CVA).
Secured creditors stand outside a CVA and therefore they have no need to call upon a personal guarantee.
I would urge all professional advisers, including accountants, lawyers and consultants to learn about CVAs since they are such a powerful tool for saving companies and in so doing avoiding personal guarantees being triggered.
Many companies are being listed for sale through brokers with high price tags based on very tenuous valuations, where the owners have been deceived into thinking they will be paid a huge amount for their equity.
However, on closer inspection it turns out that many of them have a Time to Pay arrangement with HM Revenue and Customs or are in arrears with the Revenue and are stretching their trade creditors. All too often they are insolvent but don’t realise it.
This over indebtedness is becoming a serious concern among potential investors because often the company they want to buy is operationally a great business and for trade buyers a perfect fit with their existing businesses. The problem for investors is how to protect their own interests and avoid contamination.
Very often, even experienced executives lack the knowledge and methodologies for assessing a company they want to buy, let alone knowing how to sort out the indebtedness once due diligence has revealed its extent.
In my view, potential investors can work with incumbent directors to reach agreement with creditors that protects all parties by enhancing the prospect of a return to sellers and avoiding cross contamination.
One method I use is an investment, conditional on approval of a CVA by creditors thus leaving finance agreements and any liabilities in the target company. It also allows creditors’ issues to be addressed where they are not normally consulted in a pre-pack. For the investor, this can be structured to give them security and control if they so wish.
As a rescue specialist I would advise owners trying to sell a business in difficulty to employ their own turnaround advisers before putting the business on the market.
The HM Revenue and Customs insolvency and enforcement department in Worthing appears to have an increasing workload.
I believe there are several likely reasons for this. Businesses are continuing to withhold payment of PAYE and VAT liabilities, using any cash available to prop up their businesses. Fewer Time to Pay arrangements are being approved by HMRC and a lot of TTP arrangements are failing. The Revenue have also have resumed using seizure and distraint as a method for collecting overdue tax.
HMRC in Worthing are picking up the pieces, which probably explains the large number of Winding Up Petitions that dominate the Companies Winding Up Courts.
The only options for saving a company with a WUP are either paying the undisputed amount due or a Company Voluntary Arrangement and the Courts are generally happy to adjourn the Petition at the first hearing to allow time to either pay the bill or propose a CVA.
There is considerable evidence that HMRC are supporting the rescue of companies via CVAs although their focus is on proposals being realistic and incorporating fundamental change to ensure survival rather than continuing the old business model.
I am not yet clear whether the upsurge in HMRC Worthing’s activity relates to the traditional post recession increases in company failures when the market begins to grow, or whether the downturn is continuing and companies are just not able to hang on any longer.
However all of us in the restructuring profession must urge the directors of companies in difficulties to act urgently if they are to save their company, and that they or we as advisers keep HMRC fully informed of progress during the development of rescue plans.
The last couple of months have seen a significant increase in the numbers of Winding Up Petitions (WUPs) being filed in the High Court.
K2 Business Rescue has been monitoring the number of petitions and notes that since April 2011 they have significantly increased.
Weekly averages of 100 WUPs were filed during February and March and have increased to 150 per week in April and May. This compares to a weekly average of 92 during the last quarter of 2010
Many companies in difficulty have been hanging on by their fingernails while hoping their sales will pick up.
While the picture and possible explanations are unlikely to be clear until the quarterly insolvency statistics are released, the increase in the number of petitions is likely to have been influenced by the enduring lack of cash with businesses trying to collect in their overdue debts.
A WUP is normally only filed after efforts to collect payment have been exhausted or more often ignored where the petition is a last resort, the result of frustration. This is certainly the case with HMRC who file most of the petitions.
In view of the rising numbers of compulsory WUPs it is possible that they may overtake the previously historically higher numbers of voluntary liquidations as creditors run out of patience.
Britain lacks self confidence and suffers from inadequate education, risk averse bureaucrats and unimaginative politicians trapped in the Westminster bubble outside the real world.
Former CBI chief Lord Digby Jones identifies all these as obstacles to rejuvenating UK Plc in an extract from his book Fixing Britain. It’s a picture K2 recognises.
“Too much of Britain is focused on repaying debt and not on investment in growth,” he says. “Too many companies are servicing debt and existing for the benefit of the banks when they should be cramming down debt and pursuing a clear strategy.”
Lenders, more interested in loans being repaid than on growing their customers, are stifling businesses with potential by soaking up surplus cash to service and repay their loans.
In our view companies should return to being run for their shareholders and employees rather than for the benefit of lenders. Rescue advisers can help companies with debt restructure by renegotiating loans and interest, converting debt to equity or using a CVA to cram down debt.
We need to create a market-driven and investment culture, where profits are reinvested and appropriate tax incentives to encourage business investment.
The UK cannot compete as a low-cost manufacturer with countries like India or China and therefore businesses need to focus on high value goods and services requiring specialist knowledge to justify a premium. This is why high calibre education of young people and apprenticeships are needed.
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) reported recently that in 2010 real household disposable income fell by 0.8%, its first drop since 1977.
A plethora of profit warnings from major high street retailers is therefore no surprise. JJB successfully agreed a new Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) for repaying debt, just two years after its last one. Oddbins’ attempts to agree a CVA were rejected which led to it going into administration.
Meanwhile travel company Thomas Cook announced a 6% fall in holiday bookings from the UK. Dixons announced that it was cutting capital expenditure by 25%. H Samuel and Ernest Jones, Argos and Comet all report falling sales. Mothercare is to close a third of its 373 UK stores and HMV has just sold Waterstones for £53 million to pay down some of its £170 million of debt.
Falling consumer confidence, the Government’s austerity measures and rising commodity prices have led to a steady erosion of disposable income. An April report indicated an increase in retail sales, up 0.2% on February’s, but this was attributed to non-store (internet) and small store sales and probably conceals a continued decline in High Street sales.
After a few years of expansion fuelled by debt, it is entirely logical that the marketplace is now facing a sharp contraction as consumers spend less money while they are concerned about their job security and repaying their huge levels of personal debt.
Many companies need to contract and reduce their cost base if they are to survive. For the High Street retailers this means concentrating on profitable stores and reviewing strategy.
Growth is likely to involve developing experience based retail outlets in dedicated shopping environments or direct sales such as online. The High Street has failed to reinvent itself and the recession has accelerated its decline.
It is not being much talked about in the marketplace but it is becoming increasingly common for HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) to reject Company Voluntary Arrangements that would previously have been accepted.
In the past HMRC has appeared to be a great supporter of CVAs, but recently they have been rejecting a number of CVA proposals that they would have approved in the past.
While there are no published statistics on the numbers of liquidations resulting from failed CVAs, historically a large percentage have failed. Business rescue advisers and insolvency practitioners believe that the failure rate of CVAs post approval is somewhere between 60% and 70%.
HMRC website guidelines to case officers indicate that they should attempt to get arrears repaid within 12 months with longer periods being the exception. This may explain why HMRC is now rejecting more proposals.
A CVA can be used to improve cash flow quickly in order to keep trading while paying off its debts in a manageable way. It is a legally binding agreement between an insolvent company and its creditors to repay some, or all, of its historic debts out of future profits, over a period of time.
For a business in difficulty a low level of contributions in the early period of a CVA allows it to get back on its feet in the short term while refocusing the business on survival and increasing profits, thus enabling it to pay higher contributions later in the CVA. This increases the chances of the business being able to maintain its payments throughout the CVA period and reducing the risk of failure. High repayments required in the early stages will mean it cannot do this.
However, many CVAs are drafted by insolvency practitioners with a view to the proposal being approved, and as a result many of those being approved today are offering significant contributions to creditors, some exceeding 100p in the £.
While the greater contribution improves the chances of a CVA proposal being approved by creditors, the lack of realism about a company’s ability to achieve the commitments is the reason for such a high failure rate post approval.
A Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) is a binding agreement between a company and those to whom it owes money (creditors).
It is based on a proposal that will include affordable, realistic and manageable repayment terms. It normally allows for repayment to be spread over a period of three to five years and can also be used to offer to repay less than the amount due if this is all the company can afford.
The proposal is sent to the Company’s Creditors along with an independent report on the proposal by an insolvency practitioner acting as Nominee.
Creditors are invited to respond to the CVA proposal by voting to either accept it, or reject it, or accept it subject to modifications that the Creditor proposes as a condition of their vote for acceptance. The votes are counted by value of claim where the requisite majority for approval is 75% of the votes cast. This is subject to a second vote to check that 50% of the non-connected creditors approve the proposals.
A CVA can only be used when a company is insolvent but it can be used to save a company rather than close it when creditors are pressing including when a debt related judgement can’t be satisfied or a creditor has filed a Winding Up Petition (WUP).
In addition to proposing terms for repaying debt, it helps to include details of any restructuring and reorganisation along with a business plan so that creditors can assess the viability of the surviving business. The proposals must be fair and not prejudice any individual or class of creditor including those with specific rights such as personal guarantees. These include trade suppliers, credit insurers, finance providers, employees, landlords and HM Revenue and Customs, the latter often being key in view of the arrears of VAT and PAYE that many companies have built up.
A CVA should only be used when the company’s directors are willing to be honest with themselves and face up to the position the company is in, preferably with the advice and guidance of an insolvency practitioner or experienced business rescue advisor but used properly it can improve a company’s cash flow very quickly by removing onerous financial obligations and easing the pressure from creditors.
Many directors are afraid of terminating contracts and agreements when their companies are in financial difficulties normally out of a concern that termination will lead to a cancellation payment that the company cannot afford.
If a company is experiencing fewer orders or lower sales, for example, generally it will need fewer staff but the worry is that terminating contracts of employment will trigger costs, particularly where senior staff are involved.
Similarly, a reduction in orders may mean that the company only needs two of the five fork lift trucks it has where terminating a hire purchase, hire or lease arrangement ahead of the agreed contract period will trigger a termination settlement or a contract termination liability.
Equally it might now no longer be able to afford the 12-month advertising contract it agreed six months previously. Even terminating contracts with advisers can be expensive.
A company in financial difficulties does not have the surplus cash to meet these obligations. But while it puts off terminating arrangements it no longer needs it continues to bear the costs.
It is often better to cut the cash flow if this reduces costs that mean the business is viable: profitable with positive cash flow. There are remedies that can be used if necessary to deal with the crystallised liabilities when a company cannot afford them.
Negotiating terms for informal arrangements with creditors is sensible. It may involve negotiating terms of payment, such as a Time to Pay (TTP) arrangement with HMRC for PAYE or VAT arrears, which have been very effective in helping companies out of insolvency.
Many companies leave it far too late to reach informal arrangements that would have allowed them to terminate contracts before the company finally runs out of money.
But there is a solution that allows companies to terminate contracts and not pay for them immediately on termination. A Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) avoids liquidation of the business and closing it down. It allows for paying the contract termination out of profits.
Insolvent Liquidation involves a formal process to close a company. It happens when a company is insolvent, which means it does not have enough cash or liquid assets to pay its debts and the directors have concluded that continuing to trade will be detrimental to creditors.
There are four tests (set out in the Insolvency Act 1986) any of which can be used to establish whether a company is insolvent. The tests don’t necessarily mean that the company will have to close down, although often directors assume that it must. However, there are remedies that could save the company if at this stage it calls on a licensed insolvency practitioner or business turnaround adviser, who would carry out a review of the accounts, the assets including property, stock and debts and the liabilities. With help from the adviser, the company can develop realistic plans for it to survive and trade out of insolvency.
Once it is decided that the company is insolvent, and cannot be rescued, it should be closed down in an orderly fashion which means via a liquidation process. This involves the company’s assets being turned into cash and used to pay off its debts to creditors.
There are two types of liquidation, one compulsory and one voluntary and both are legal processes.
Voluntary liquidation through a Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation (CVL) is when the directors of the company themselves conclude that the company can no longer go on trading and should be wound up.
Normally they would engage an insolvency practitioner to help guide the directors through the formal procedure, which involves a board meeting to convene shareholder and creditor meetings.
The nominated liquidator normally sends out notices to shareholders and creditors having obtained their details from the directors and helps directors prepare the necessary formal documentation that is legally required.
The nominated liquidator must be a licensed insolvency practitioner who provides his consent to act which must be available for inspection at the meeting.
If the directors have left consulting too late they can then find themselves facing the court winding up procedure rather than having the option of a CVL.
Compulsory liquidation is triggered by a creditor formally asking the courts to have a company closed down by submitting a Winding Up Petition (WUP. In this case the court decides whether or not to support the petition by ordering that the company be wound up (compulsorily liquidated).
Upon a winding up order being made, an officer called the official receiver is automatically appointed to take control of the company to oversee the process of closing it down. The official receiver may, if he/she wishes, appoint a liquidator to assist in dealing with recovering and selling any assets.
The large number of companies in financial difficulties is swamping the banks and as a result there is a lack of experience in banks when dealing with companies in the process of restructuring.
If a company is subject to a Winding-up Petition (WUP) the bank can be held liable for any funds that are paid out of its bank account once the Petition has been advertised in the London Gazette. As a result banks tend to freeze the accounts of any company with an outstanding WUP as soon as they become aware of it. The only way for a company to free up money in a frozen account is via an application to Court for a Validation Order.
When attempting to save a company where there is no WUP, however, the lack of experience among banks means that in some instances they are behaving as if there were a WUP and this is getting in the way of attempts to restructure because banks do not understand the distinction between the various restructuring tools.
An example of where this is happening is when a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) is being proposed. The process of agreeing a CVA involves notifying creditors of the intention and allowing time for a meeting to be set up for creditors to approve the CVA proposals. Usually there is a hiatus period of at least three weeks between notification and the meeting, which allows creditors to consider the proposals and make any comments or request adjustments before the meeting.
However, banks’ inexperience of CVAs is leading some of them to freeze company accounts during the hiatus period and this has an adverse effect in that the company is no longer able to trade. While banks generally do not have the right to freeze their clients’ bank accounts unless there is either a WUP, an order by the Court or a breach of contract, they may take precautionary action out of fear when they don’t know what is going on. Concern about fraud can always be used to justify such an action.
It therefore makes sense for a company to talk to its bank beforehand to let them know what’s going on. Where the company is overdrawn clearly the bank is a creditor and should be notified of any restructuring proposals, in particular where there is a CVA.
In April 2009 the retailer JJB successfully proposed a CVA designed to save 250 stores and 12,000 jobs. It has become the model for subsequent CVAs in the retail sector.
The proposal included closing 140 unprofitable stores but made available a fund of £10m for the landlord creditors of these premises, equating to a payment of approximately six months rent and JJB also made a significant compromise in bearing the substantial costs of the business rates of the unprofitable stores.
No leases were ‘torn up’ by the CVA and it was left to individual landlords to decide whether they wished to accept a surrender, consent to an assignment or forfeit the lease. The landlords as a group recognised that there was a substantial risk that JJB would go into administration, with a loss of their payments of rent or business rates for the closed stores and appreciated being consulted in a transparent process and being offered a genuine compromise.
It often happens that the core of a struggling business is viable and it need not go into administration if it can be restructured to focus on the parts that are profitable.
That can be beneficial to the creditors too, because they will then see some return on what they are owed, as the above example illustrates. In many cases the creditors will include landlords who own the property or properties from which the business is trading.
The forced termination of a lease can only be done by a liquidator following a company’s liquidation. If a company goes into administration and is sold the Administrator can also force termination of those leases no longer required.
However, in the JJB illustration negotiation with the landlords to terminate some leases was made possible by proving to them how much they would receive in the event of a liquidation and showing that the alternative offer set up using a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) was better than liquidation.
Forcing a change in the terms of a lease is extremely difficult and the courts will want to test whether or not a landlord has been treated fairly as a creditor in a CVA, regarded as vertical and horizontal tests.
There are a number of options for companies who find themselves in financial difficulties, but a real challenge is finding someone to help.
It’s made more difficult if the directors/owners take the view that they know their business better than anyone else and infer from this that if they don’t know the solution, then no one else will.
A second issue is trying to solve the situation alone, via a self-help route. It may be that research has revealed a number of options and in a situation of financial difficulty there is a temptation to latch onto the cheapest or first solution. Indeed, you are likely to think you can’t afford help and as a result persuade yourself that the cheap solution is the right one. It is no surprise that a lot of companies fail having not sought any advice.
In either situation eventually a squeeze on cash flow or pressure from creditors tends to be the catalyst that galvanises action and you are likely to start looking for a solution.
Who do you turn to for help when feeling as boxed in as this? What’s needed is a business rescue adviser, but how do you go about the process of finding one from among the insolvency, turnaround, accounting and consultancy advisers?
Carry out a thorough vetting process to confirm they have suitable experience and offer a rescue process rather than selling only one rescue solution. The rescue process should involve a thorough business review to identify a viable business that can emerge from the process, then developing and implementing an operational reorganisation and financial restructuring plan. One aspect of the financial restructuring plan will be how to deal with all the company’s liabilities.
In addition to bank and trade creditors a key creditor is likely to be the HMRC (Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise). Too often companies are advised to enter a Time to Pay arrangement with the HMRC to deal with tax, VAT or PAYE arrears or to enter a Company Voluntary Agreement (CVA) to deal with debts without a realistic assessment of the other demands on the company’s cash.
The first thing to find out, therefore, is whether the adviser is selling something or has a vested interest in the company pursuing a particular solution. Having established they are truly independent, the adviser will conduct a review to establish the core issues.
Support from business rescue advisers with broad commercial experience, not just insolvency, will help manage the process while at the same time helping find a realistic solution.
In early 2010 HMRC (Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs) served notice for a Winding up Petition against a small trading company. The company had ignored HMRC for three years and had not submitted accounts for three years, not since 2007. A director attended the winding up hearing in court unrepresented. He said he was trying to reach agreement with the Revenue and was granted 3 weeks stay of execution.
During the three weeks the company sought our help and experience of turnaround and insolvency, to advise on restructuring options, help develop and implement a rescue plan and also help manage the court process.
After a business review, we concluded that it was possible to buy some time to allow the company to be restructured. We first recommended that a barrister should represent the company at the adjourned hearing. The barrister successfully sought a six-week adjournment to give time for a rescue plan to be put in place, including proposing a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) for approval at a meeting with creditors. This strategy was achieved and at the third hearing the petition was dismissed.
Winding-up petitions are generally used for two purposes:
They may be used as a final attempt by a legitimate creditor to force the debtor company to respond following previous failed attempts to contact them to try to agree payment terms for the outstanding liability.
They are also used to bully a debtor company into settling an outstanding liability, whether disputed or just to get paid before other creditors.
This second reason is often an abuse of process, where the courts are easily deceived. Procedure in court is often key, especially when experienced creditors who know how to play the court ‘game’ use barristers to deal with innocent directors doing their best to represent the company without expert advice.
Winding up petitions in themselves don’t mean that a company is insolvent but they do indicate underlying issues that have not been addressed. The issues can include a lack of cash to pay bills on time, being unaware of legal process, or a dispute that has been ignored or spilled over into frustration.
The courts are aware of this and tend to be lenient towards directors who ask for time to resolve the petition by granting an adjournment. However, their attitude hardens if, at the adjourned hearing, it is shown that the director has failed to fulfil the undertaking given at the earlier hearing.
A CVA (Company Voluntary Arrangement) is a powerful tool for restructuring the liabilities of an insolvent company, but it does not, in itself, save the company unless the business is viable.
It is an agreement between an insolvent company and its creditors. Therefore a thorough business review is also needed to support the CVA by establishing that the business can be profitable in the future.
The arrangement is a legal agreement that protects a company – essentially giving it some time or a breathing space by preventing creditors from attacking it.
It allows a viable but struggling company to repay some, or all, of its historic debts out of future profits, over a period of time to be agreed, and allows the company’s directors to stay in control of the company.
CVAs allow a company to improve cash flow quickly, by removing pressure from tax, VAT and PAYE authorities and other creditors while the CVA is prepared. They can also be used to terminate employment contracts, leases, onerous supply contracts with no immediate cash cost. It is a relatively inexpensive process.
A company can be protected from an aggressive creditor while a CVA is being proposed and constructed. It can stop legal actions like winding up petitions. In case law, providing a creditor has less than 25% of the overall debts of the company then they can be required to consider the proposal even when a winding up petition is issued.
Ultimately it is also a good arrangement for creditors as they retain a customer and receive a dividend on their debts, which might otherwise be written off in the event of liquidation.
However, it is not a do-it-yourself option for a struggling business but should only be entered into with the help and guidance of an experienced business rescue adviser with the tools and knowledge to help turn around struggling companies.