Tenant CVAs - what makes them acceptable?

This year has seen a new phenomenon being cemented on to the toolkit of the struggling retailer which, in my opinion, was not anticipated prior to 2009 - the large retailer Creditors Voluntary Arrangement (CVA).

For those not necessarily in the know a CVA is effectively a binding agreement reached between a company and its creditors where the creditors will agree a delayed repayment and/or write-off of debts. The agreement is limited in time (a maximum of 2 years) and is monitored by an independent party. For creditors generally (and most importantly unsecured creditors) the process is preferable over administration or liquidation since in those processes the likelihood is that the unsecured creditors will get little or no p/£ of debt. The attractiveness for secured creditors is that it is cheaper than administration and thus should protect the value of the secured assets within the business whilst they retain their security over them.

The year started off very badly for the CVA when, in February, a CVA proposed by the administrators of the Stylo Group (then owner of the Barratts and Priceless shoe chains) was voted down by its creditors and most vehemently by its landlords. At that point one would have been forgiven for thinking that the view following the Powerhouse decision that CVAs were not appropriate where significant leasehold property interests were involved.

However, since the Stylo CVA proposal was defeated quite the opposite has occurred with successful CVAs being agreed on a number of large retailers including JJB Sports and Focus DIY. The latest instalment is a vote today by the creditors of Blacks Leisure on its CVA proposal. It is anticipated that it will be successful (see FT.com article).

The question is what is different about the post-Stylo CVA proposals that have made them successful where Stylo failed? Is it that the market has changed? Is it that Stylo simply broke a taboo and after venting their anger at Stylo landlords have since been more agreeable?

The answer is most likely a mixture but when you look at the detail of the proposals there is a fundamental difference between the unsuccessful Stylo proposal and the other successful proposals. That difference is money and control.

In Stylo every single landlord would have lost out as the proposal involved changing all rents to a turnover rent initially at 3% increasing to 7% (very low levels compared to normal turnover rents) and without a floor. Landlords were invited to seek to obtain better deals in the market and if successful Stylo could either match the deal or surrender their lease. The good news on the Stylo deal was that there was no landlord immediately facing a closed store with irrecoverable cost. The bad news was that the income landlords would obtain was totally dependent on the performance of the tenant. For stores with little or no likelihood of re letting in the medium to long term this was probably okay as at least void costs were avoided. But for landlords of stores that were in good areas the reduction in rent was unacceptable.

Moreover, Stylo was not guaranteeing that every store would then be safe as it sought an ability to surrender those stores it chose during the life of the CVA. There was to be no compensation to landlords for taking back their stores and no protection from void costs. It is probably this exposure that was the ultimate issue for landlords.

Compare that to the successful CVAs which have some or all of the following features:

• No additional store closures over and above those that had already closed (i.e. landlords knew if their site was closed)
• No rent reductions although movement to monthly rent payments
• On closed stores the tenant would continue to pay the rates (landlords were protected from this oppressive liability)
• A pot of money (normally equal to 6 months' rent) was distributed between the landlords of closed stores as compensation

The difference is huge. On the successful CVAs Landlords knew where they stood immediately. Closed store landlords knew that in an administration they would get nothing whereas in the CVA they would get compensation and be protected from void rates whilst the lease subsisted. Open store landlords were asked for concessions which they would probably have given without a CVA.

What the above highlights more than anything else is that timing matters. Clearly, for Stylo to have proposed a CVA along the lines of the successful proposals it would have required significantly more cash to cover the large expenses. This would have meant a CVA being proposed a lot earlier than it was. In the end the timing was wrong. To have a successful CVA you need to have sufficient funds to "buy off" the worst off creditors (i.e. landlords of closing stores). This requires the directors to be brave enough to recognise the issues and see the potential for a better result for creditors and stakeholders alike by taking early pre-emptive action when the company can afford it.

Whether the successful CVAs will actually result in successful companies in the future only time will tell but, at least for the landlords, the CVA was a less bitter pill in the short term.