JJB proposed CVA: Will it succeed?

A colleague has just sent to me a copy of the announcement by JJB regarding its proposed CVAs.  Only a month ago I wrote a blog regarding the possibility of HMV proposing a CVA which contained some advice for Landlords.  Thus far it has not happened and, I have been told that my expectations may have been too high since HMV remains profitable despite its troublesome retail sites.
However, from the sidelines JJB is now proposing a CVA the mainstay of which appears to be an attempt to get rid of underperforming sites.  The announcement states the following:

"The key objectives of the CVA proposal will be to:

• enable the closure over the next 12 months of up to 45 stores which are underperforming (the "Category 1 Stores");
• enable a review to be carried out in relation to the remaining stores, with an option to close over the next 24 months up to a further 50 stores which are also underperforming (the"Category 2 Stores");
• enable the Company to continue to pay rates on closed stores in the period up to the first break date under each lease;
• vary the terms of the leases of the Category 1 Stores and Category 2 Stores such that rent will be payable on a monthly, rather than a quarterly, basis;
• reduce the amount of rent payable in respect of stores which will be closed in due course for a period of up to 12 months for the Category 1 Stores and a period of up to 24 months for the Category 2 Stores (if the stores are closed after the end of the relevant period, no further rent will be payable);
• enable landlords of the stores for closure to require the Company to vacate and determine or assign the lease of the relevant property upon at least 30 days notice; and
• vary the terms of the continuing leases such that rent will be payable on a monthly, rather than a quarterly, basis for a period of 24 months."

In November 2009, following the first successful CVA by JJB I blogged on "Tenant CVAs - what makes them successful?".  In this blog I identified a number of common themes which ran through the successful CVAs.  Let's look at those in the context of the JJB announcement:

1. No additional store closures over and above those that had already closed (i.e. landlords knew if their site was closed) - the new JJB proposal leaves 95 stores at threat of closure.  The landlords of those stores may or may not be identified at the outset creating significant uncertainty.  New JJB Proposal fails the test
2. No rent reductions on stores remaining open although movement to monthly rent payments - the new proposal is that rents will be reduced on Category 1 and Category 2 Stores and that on these stores rent will be payable monthly.  On the remaining 150 stores the rent will remain the same.  Double whammy for landlords of Cat 1 and Cat 2 stores.  New JJB Proposal largely fails the test
3. On closed stores the tenant would continue to pay the rates (landlords were protected from this oppressive liability) - this appears to be the proposal on the JJB CVA.  Test passed
4. A pot of money (normally equal to 6 months' rent) was distributed between the landlords of closed stores as compensation - there is nothing in the announcement suggesting such a pot and the implication is there will be none.  Test failed

Therefore, based on my previous views as to what makes a Tenant CVA proposal acceptable to Landlords it is doubtful that the JJB proposal passes the test.

So what should you do if you are a Landlord who has a property let to JJB?  Well, all I can do is re-iterate what I said in my blog on the possibility of an HMV CVA:

• first and foremost do not go it alone - unless you are a significant creditor your ability to block or seek changes in the proposals will be fruitless unless others share your views. Therefore find out who the other landlords are and talk to them
• take legal advice - CVAs amount to binding contracts on both the company and the creditors. Some proposals can mean that the CVA is liable to challenge for "unfair prejudice" but the law is complex
• take valuation advice - especially if your property is one which JJB seeks to dispose of as you need to understand what this would mean in terms of reletting
• act quickly - waiting until the week before the meeting to read the proposals and ask a lawyer to advise you on what it means for you is a case of too little too late. My advice to all of JJB's landlords is to take action now so that you are well prepared in the event a CVA is proposed
• beware breach of your loan covenants - if you have borrowed against the property then any action you take is likely to require the endorsement of your bank.  Also, agreeing reductions in rent could put you in breach of interest cover tests so you will need to check your loan documentation too

Of course the formal CVA proposal has not yet been published so the final form may differ from the outline proposals.  If you are a Landlord who is affected then please feel free to contact me.

HMV appoint KPMG - CVA on the way?

In my post earlier this month on VAT increases and snow - the Perfect Storm I noted how HMV had plans to close 60 stores.  What I did not mention at the time were my suspicions as to how they might seek to achieve this - through the use of a company voluntary arrangement (CVA).  The unconfirmed news today that HMV have appointed KPMG as debt advisors increases the likelihood of this significantly; in my mind KPMG are the Kings of CVA.  From a restructuring point of view I hope that is viewed as a compliment (as if not I expect to be getting some irate calls from people I know there!).
KPMG were behind the successful CVAs for well know names including JJB Sports, Blacks Leisure and the Suits You shops.  Prior to these successes the general view was that CVAs were inappropriate for retail businesses but these successful CVAs changed all that.  See my blog on what makes a retail CVA acceptable back in 2009.

So why am I so convinced that HMV will attempt a CVA?  Well the facts are all lined up perfectly:

• a business model suffering from a serious squeeze on all sides
• an internet business which is probably being dragged down by the retail units
• a significant number of unprofitable retail sites which HMV needs to close

Why will a CVA work well?

• it will allow HMV to cut a deal with all the landlords on the sites it is closing without needing to agree individual deals
• a handful of difficult landlords (especially likely where some of the landlords are in effect individuals) can be forced to accept the terms of the CVA
• trade creditors and suppliers can be left effectively untouched ensuring they will support the proposals and the business which is crucial

What should I do if I am a landlord affected by a CVA proposal?

• first and foremost do not go it alone - unless you are a significant creditor your ability to block or seek changes in the proposals will be fruitless unless others share your views.  Therefore find out who the other landlords are and talk to them
• take legal advice - CVAs amount to binding contracts on both the company and the creditors.  Some proposals can mean that the CVA is liable to challenge for "unfair prejudice" but the law is complex
• take valuation advice - especially if your property is one which HMV seeks to dispose of as you need to understand what this would mean in terms of reletting
• act quickly - waiting until the week before the meeting to read the proposals and ask a lawyer to advise you on what it means for you is a case of too little too late.  My advice to all of HMV's landlords is to take action now so that you are well prepared in the event a CVA is proposed

Whether or not a CVA is proposed it will be fascinating to see how HMV deals with its current woes - will it rock or will it bomb? 

JJB warns of financial breach - a threat to the CVA model?

JJB warns of financial breach Online Property Week
This was the headline which is sending shivers down the backs of Landlords across the country whether or not JJB is actually a tenant of theirs for a number of reasons.

1. JJB, whilst not a bell weather for the retail sector per se, is a large enough retailer that if it is failing to perform it is indicative of issues in the market generally.
2. JJB, utilised a Creditors Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) to much fanfare in 2009 - one in a line of large retailers to do so.  At the time I considered the reasons why one CVA is successful whereas another is not.  Now that the outcome of that CVA is not looking positive Landlords may be concerned regarding the other CVAs which they approved.

As a real estate restructuring lawyer the potential failure of JJB to turn itself around despite the CVA creates an interesting dimension.  The whole argument of a CVA is that the creditors overall will get a better deal than if the company entered administration or liquidation.  Creditors are asked to forgo a proportion of their debt and/or agree revised payment terms in order for the company to continue trading.

For landlords the deal has always been a difficult one.  In a retail CVA there are always some properties the company wishes to exit and the landlord is forced to decide between accepting a liquidated damages offer or taking its chances in an insolvency.  It seemed that JJB (and others like Focus DIY and Blacks Leisure) had managed to work out the correct level of compensation to pay landlords to get them to agree the CVA.

However, if companies that have been through CVAs begin to fail again a couple of years later landlords are going to be left asking themselves whether the problems facing the company where not really the leases but rather the management or the business itself.  Bearing in mind the cost to landlords of considering the CVA terms one wonders whether some will come to the conclusion that it is just not worth it and refuse to back CVAs in the future.

Only time will tell but for now anyway, all JJB's landlords are not sleeping quite so soundly at present.

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.