New Look lurches towards collapse as two landlords reject CVA

New Look British Land Landsec Hammerson CVA covid-19
Three retail property giants own just over 40 New Look stores
// New Look’s CVA rejected by two property landlords
// British Land owns 19 New Look stores, and Landsec owns 10
// Hammerson is also considering voting against the CVA

Two property giants have reportedly rejected New Look’s CVA proposal as the retailer’s future hangs in the balance.

British Land, which owns 19 New Look stores, and Landsec, which owns 10, will oppose its planned CVA on Tuesday, Sky News reported.

Meanwhile, Bullring centre owner Hammerson is also said to be considering voting against the CVA.


In total, the three retail property giants own just over 40 of New Look’s 490 stores across the UK.

The fast fashion retailer is seeking for a second major financial restructuring in under two years.

If approved, its CVA would result in the company switching its rent payments at the majority of its stores to a formula calculated according to their turnover.

New Look said the proposed CVA involves a material reduction of debt, extension of the company’s banking facilities and a cash investment of £40 million.

It represents the “best outcome” for all stakeholders, including employees, suppliers, landlords and creditors.

Alongside the rent cuts, New Look is also seeking for a debt-for-equity swap.

Over the weekend, online retailer Boohoo expressed interest in acquiring New Look if it collapses into administration.

Click here to sign up to Retail Gazette’s free daily email newsletter


  1. I completely support rejection of the CVA. Likewise all business, they have to accept the bad times along side the good times. I have never know a tenants to ask a landlord to put their rent up because they are doing well. Business need to adapt their trading models to ensure their survival. Thus its not there landlords responsibility.

  2. Yep, a head in the sand always works. There is a simple fact that very few retail properties are worth (ie. are financially able to support a profitable business on the current lease) what they were 5 years ago. Frankly, some units will be practically worthless.
    One assumes that BL has worked out that it can put its sites to other retailers or other uses, post administration. Fine.
    For most landlords, however, long vacancies await if they don’t do a deal.

  3. One thing I don’t understand is if the business completely fails and the shop units become empty then landlords won’t get anything. Surely it’s in their interests to keep the business going to at least have some rent from it. A turnover based system seems a logical way to go as long it is closely monitored through accounting procedures partnered between the retailer and the landlord


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here