An important judgment by Snowden J yesterday, sanctioning Virgin Active's restructuring plans after a contested sanction hearing, which included a cram down of several landlord classes that did not approve the plans by the requisite majorities in those classes.

The decision is important as among the many points covered, it considers certain key issues including:

An important judgment handed down by Zacaroli J yesterday in the New Look CVA challenge. The New Look CVA proposal involved treating landlords of different leases in various different ways, including (i) resetting rent to a turnover percentage (ii) keeping rent intact and (iii) reducing rent to nil. Landlords are given the flexibility to terminate leases within a prescribed period where they identify a tenant prepared to pay better rent (important to ensure the landlord's proprietary right is not interfered with). In a CVA, all unsecured creditors are invited to vote.

The UK's accession to the Lugano Convention has become somewhat politicised, with the EU stating that it is not minded to allow the UK to accede, as that will then set a precedent for other third party states.

This will impact certain UK restructuring tools.

Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 regulations come into force on 26 March 2021 extending the duration of COVID-19 related temporary measures, including:

Some interesting recent scheme and plan law of late, proving that schemes and plans continue to be popular restructuring tools for all types of companies and international groups.

DeepOcean companies (Part 26A plans) – January 2021

This was the first time that the court had to consider the application of the new ‘cross-class cram down’ procedure under Part 26A. Trower J approved the plans proposed by three DeepOcean companies but had reserved judgment and in late January handed down a written judgment with important guidance for future plans.

Another interesting case on schemes around the issue of insolvency. A judgment handed down yesterday by Snowden J in MAB Leasing Limited (a Malaysia Airlines leasing company) "parked" the issue of whether a Part 26 scheme (note, not a Part 26A plan) was an insolvency related event under the Cape Town Convention and Aircraft Protocol, as there was unanimous creditor consent. At the earlier convening hearing, Zacaroli J, without needing to decide the issue, stated that the company counsel's skeleton provided a "powerful case for concluding that the [Cape Town Convention] did not apply".

Very interesting judgment yesterday from Zacaroli J in "gategroup Guarantee Limited" (with a small g) that Part 26A plans are insolvency proceedings and therefore fall outside European civil and commercial jurisdictional rules. Pre-Brexit case law tells us that Part 26 schemes are probably not insolvency proceedings and are therefore capable of falling within those rules. Zacaroli J found that the "financial difficulties" threshold conditions to Part 26A plans (which do not exist for Part 26 schemes) made a significant difference.

Today, the Government published the highly anticipated Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the “CIGB”).  It legislates for the landmark changes to the UK’s corporate insolvency regime and the temporary suspension of the statutory provisions on wrongful trading announced by the Business Secretary on 28 March 2020 (see Weil’s European Restructuring Watch update of 30 March 2020).

The new UK legislation for companies in financial difficulty represents a fundamental shift in approach to restructuring in Europe and adds an important new tool to the UK restructuring framework. The availability of a plan proposed under the new Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (a “Restructuring Plan”) will undoubtedly change how many distressed companies seek to address their financial difficulties. However, until case law is developed, there will remain considerable uncertainty as to how the Restructuring Plan will work in practice.

In a highly-anticipated decision on a long-running bondholder dispute, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its judgment last week in Marblegate Asset Management LLC v Education Management Corp. It concluded that “Section 316(b) [of the US Trust Indenture Act 1939] prohibits only non-consensual amendments to an indenture’s core payment terms”, i.e. the amount of principal and interest owed and the maturity date.