Mike Ashley funds challenge to Debenham’s rescue plan

Retail chain tells court Sports Direct is looking to eliminate a competitor

Sports Direct boss Mike Ashley is funding a legal challenge to a deal which rescued Debenhams from administration in order to “eliminate a competitor”, the troubled retailer has told the British high court. Photograph:  Simon Dawson/Reuters

Sports Direct boss Mike Ashley is funding a legal challenge to a deal which rescued Debenhams from administration in order to “eliminate a competitor”, the troubled retailer has told the British high court. Photograph: Simon Dawson/Reuters

 

Sports Direct boss Mike Ashley is funding a legal challenge to a deal which rescued Debenhams from administration in order to “eliminate a competitor”, the High Court has heard.

The retailer gained approval for rent cuts and store closures through a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) earlier this year, paving the way for 50 store closures and 1,200 job losses.

The CVA, which will see some landlords’ rents reduced by between 35 per cent and 50 per cent, is being challenged by Combined Property Control Group (CPC), which is the landlord of six Debenhams stores in England.

At a hearing in London on Monday, Debenhams’ barrister, Tom Smith QC, said the retailer considered that Sports Direct was funding the case because it “wants to drive its principal competitor out of business”.

Mr Smith told Mr Justice Norris that Sports Direct seemed to want to “drive Debenhams into administration so that it can pick up its assets on the cheap”, adding that such an objective “would be consistent with Sports Direct’s recent modus operandi”.

In written submissions, Mr Smith said Sports Direct’s role in funding the case was “highly unusual and a matter of significant concern to the company”.

He added that Sports Direct was a major shareholder in the Debenhams group and had “voiced grievances that its own proposals for the restructuring/refinancing of the group were not accepted”.

Mr Smith submitted that Sports Direct “is obviously doing this (funding the case) because it thinks it is in its own commercial interests to do so”, and suggested that Sports Direct’s conduct “may be borne of a desire to ‘punish’ the company and its lenders for rejecting Sports Direct’s proposals”.

Daniel Bayfield QC, representing the landlords, argued that the CVA was void as it “goes beyond the jurisdiction” set out in the Insolvency Act, and that it “unfairly prejudices the interests of the applicants”.

Mr Bayfield submitted that most of the applicant landlords held the properties “on trust for various charities”, adding: “Challenging a CVA is an expensive and uncertain process, particularly for a charity.

“In those circumstances, [Sports Direct] has agreed to fund the legal fees of the applicants and to pay any adverse costs order made against the applicants.”

The CVA was approved by nearly 95 per cent of creditors by value who voted on the proposed deal.

But Mr Bayfield said those figures should be “treated with great caution”, as many of those who voted for it “were not affected by it, and expect to be paid in full at the expense of the most impaired categories of landlords”.

In a statement ahead of the hearing, a Debenhams spokesman said: “We remain extremely confident this challenge is without merit and expect it to fail.

“In the meantime, we are progressing with our restructuring, which was approved by the vast majority of creditors, including 80 per cent of landlords.”– PA