In January 2018 the English High Court considered whether it had jurisdiction under the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (CBIR) to extend a temporary stay on the commencement of enforcement action in respect of English law debt obligations owed by a foreign debtor so that in effect the stay became permanent, or whether such a permanent stay would breach the long established rule in Gibbs[1](whic
On 9 November 2017, in a rare example of a contested recognition hearing, His Honour Judge Paul Matthews granted recognition of Agrokor’s extraordinary administration (EA) as a foreign main proceeding under the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (CBIR).
On 24 October 2017 the Court of Appeal handed down its decision in what has become known as the Waterfall IIA and B litigation (Burlington Loan Management Limited and others v Lomas and others [2017] EWCA Civ 1462). The decision also covered an appeal of one point from the High Court Waterfall IIC decision.
In Re Lehman Brothers Europe Ltd (in administration) [2017] EWHC 2031 (Ch) a proposal by joint administrators to appoint a director to a company already in administration (LBEL), in order to distribute surplus funds to its sole member (Lehman Brothers Holdings plc (LBH)), as opposed to a creditor, was held to be legally permissible, as well as pragmatic and beneficial.
In a decision that will be welcomed both by second-ranking secured creditors and by administrators, the Court of Appeal recently held that a second-ranking floating charge (SRFC) was still capable of being a qualifying floating charge for the purposes of Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986 despite the earlier crystallisation of a prior-ranking floating charge (PRFC). In addition, the SRFC was capable of being enforceable notwithstanding the fact that there were no assets of the chargor which were not covered by the PRFC.
Much time is spent by MLAs and Sponsors negotiating the list of unanimous lender decisions in a leveraged finance syndicated facilities agreement. The Sponsor will be concerned that its portfolio company should not find itself "held to ransom" on a waiver request by a dissenting minority lender. On the other hand, lenders require certain fundamental transaction terms to be entrenched so that key decisions cannot be taken without them. Commonly, changes which would increase the facilities, reduce the margin or extend the final repayment date will require the consent of all lenders.
Smile Telecoms, which last year implemented the first restructuring plan for a cross-border African business, has now achieved another first by using section 901C(4) of the Companies Act 2006 to exclude all bar one class from voting on its new restructuring plan.
On 26 November 2020, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Suspension of Liability for Wrongful Trading and Extension of the Relevant Period) Regulations 2020 (the “Regulations”) came into force. As well as extending to 31 March 2021 the “relevant period” for certain temporary modifications to the holding of company meetings, the Regulations reintroduce the suspension of the liability for wrongful trading.
The recent English case Arlington Infrastructure Ltd (in administration) and another v Woolrych and others demonstrates the importance of a secured creditor obtaining any consent necessary under the terms of intercreditor arrangements before taking enforcement action.
The facts of the case
On 23 April 2020 the UK Government announced that they will be introducing a temporary ban on the use of statutory demands and winding up petitions where the inability to pay has arisen because of the COVID-19 pandemic.