The forecast for the English scheme and plan looks set fair despite concerns around Brexit turbulence.

The restructuring market’s appetite for Part 26 schemes of arrangement and Part 26A restructuring plans shows no signs of diminishing, with some debtors (Smile Telecoms and ED&F Man) even taking a second bite of the cherry. In this article, we explore recurring themes identified in the market throughout the past 18 months.

Out of the money, out of the room

Insolvency officeholders may need clearance upon appointment to entity in an affected sector.

A restructuring plan completed earlier this year by Smile Telecoms notches up a number of firsts.

African telecommunications provider Smile Telecoms Holding Limited, incorporated in Mauritius, successfully completed a restructuring plan (the Plan) under Part 26A of the UK Companies Act 2006 at the end of March 2021.

The Plan features a number of novel actions, including:

The decision provides new judicial guidance for determining the boundaries of cross-class cram down tests. 

On 28 June 2021, the High Court declined to sanction a restructuring plan proposed by Hurricane Energy plc (Hurricane), an AIM listed oil drilling company, under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (Act). The plan would have seen shareholders diluted to 5% of Hurricane’s equity, with the remaining 95% issued to bondholders as consideration for a partial debt-for-equity swap. 

The ruling confirmed that Section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 has extensive international reach, and does not require a transaction at an undervalue to leave the debtor with insufficient assets.

Background

The decision confirms that company voluntary arrangements remain a flexible tool for restructuring leasehold portfolios.

• No rigid test exists for “basic fairness” that requires a landlord to receive at least market rent, or that contractual rent should be interfered with to the minimum extent necessary.

• If a landlord is entitled to terminate the lease and receive a better outcome than in the alternative, any automatic unfairness from changes to the terms of the lease is negated.

• Whether a CVA is unfairly prejudicial depends on all the circumstances of the case.

Landmark decision holds that the SFO does not have the power to procure documents from foreign companies outside the jurisdiction.

Successfully executing an acquisition from stress, distress, or insolvency requires a creative approach to reconcile competing interests.

Debtors and investors have an enhanced choice of restructuring venues as the EU Restructuring Directive is rolled out in Member States

The recent decision of the London Commercial Court in PJSC Tatneft v Gennady Bogolyubov & Ors [2018] EWHC 1314 (Comm) highlights the importance that the Court will attach to full asset disclosure by a respondent to ensure the effectiveness of a freezing order, even in circumstances where the value of a respondent’s assets exceeds the sum frozen by the order.

Freezing Orders: What Are They?