Company voluntary arrangements

General

The applicable legislation is the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) and the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (IR 2016), SI 2016/1024.

A company voluntary arrangement (CVA) is a contractual agreement between a company and its creditors and is the corporate equivalent of individual voluntary arrangements (IVAs) for individuals (see Practice Note: Company voluntary arrangements—an introductory guide). The main benefits of CVAs include:

•
there's no need to prove insolvency, so action can be taken early at the first signs of distress
•
dissenting unsecured creditors can be crammed down if the CVA is approved by 75% in value of creditors present in person or by proxy and voting on the proposal (and not opposed by more than 50% of independent creditors ie those who are not associates). The CVA proposal will even bind creditors who are unaware of the CVA proposal/creditors' decision procedures

However, the main limitation is the lack of any automatic moratorium (the small companies moratorium was abolished by CIGA 2020). Accordingly, CVAs are sometimes combined with administrations to benefit from the moratorium arising under administration or could

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Restructuring & Insolvency News

Court of Justice’s first ruling on the conformity of asymmetric jurisdiction clauses with the Brussels I (recast) Regulation and the 2007 Lugano Convention

EU Law analysis: In its decision on 27 February 2025 in the Lastre case, the Court of Justice handed down its long-awaited first judgment on the conformity of asymmetric jurisdiction clauses with the Brussels I (recast) Regulation and the 2007 Lugano Convention. Guillaume Croisant, Claudia Cavicchioli and Nicole Rölike, counsels, and Alexia Kaztaridou and Julie Esquenazi, associate, of Linklaters LLP, discuss the ruling. The details of the decision and any possible impact, in particular the requirement for the clause to be interpreted as designating courts of EU or Lugano States, will need to be analysed more closely.

Insolvency Service reports prison sentence for construction boss for fraudulent removal of company funds

The Insolvency Services reports on a Nottinghamshire construction boss who has been sentenced to two years and four months' imprisonment, for fraudulently removing £702,050 from four failing construction companies between 2014 and 2017. Wesley Grainger-Smith (whilst not an official director) exercised significant control over the companies and transferred the funds to his personal casino account, in violation of section 206 of the Insolvency Act 1986. Although approximately £570,000 was reportedly repaid through gambling winnings, the unauthorised use of company funds led to his bankruptcy in March 2017, a five-year directorship disqualification in July 2017, and a further ten-year ban in June 2019.

New Practice Note—Removal of trustee in bankruptcy

The LexisNexis Restructuring & Insolvency practical guidance team has published a new Practice Note—‘Removal of trustee in bankruptcy’. This Practice Note considers the removal of a trustee in bankruptcy from office by the court, creditors and the Secretary of State. It also discusses the trustee’s duties on vacating office and their release.

Out of the money creditors—always to be ignored? (Re Revolution Bars Ltd)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: In sanctioning a restructuring plan of Revolution Bars Ltd (the plan) the court held that there were particular circumstances as to why the fairness of the plan ought to be considered in relation to both ‘in the money’ and ‘out of the money’ dissenting creditor classes. This was despite the views of the latter generally counting for very little as per Re Virgin Active. Among the classes of creditors who had approved the plan were a group of landlords and business rate creditors. The court, guided by Re Altitude Scaffolding, proceeded on the basis that since only one person had been physically present at the meeting, notwithstanding they held a number of proxies, it could not be considered a meeting and therefore that class of creditors should be viewed as dissenting. Written by Ben Channer, barrister at 3 Hare Court.

View Restructuring & Insolvency by content type :

News