The decision confirms that company voluntary arrangements remain a flexible tool for restructuring leasehold portfolios.

Key Points:

The judge rejected each of the landlords’ arguments, confirming that:

..A CVA may provide for different outcomes for different groups of creditors.

..No rigid test exists for “basic fairness” that requires a landlord to receive at least market rent, or that contractual rent should be interfered with to the minimum extent necessary.

..If a landlord is entitled to terminate the lease and receive a better outcome than in the alternative, any automatic unfairness from changes to the terms of the lease is negated.

..Whether a CVA is unfairly prejudicial depends on all the circumstances of the case.

..The fact that the statutory majority to approve a CVA is achieved by the votes of unimpaired creditors or those who receive substantially different treatment is not necessarily unfairly prejudicial (though it is a highly relevant factor in considering unfair prejudice).