On 30 April 2021, reforms to the UK’s regime governing sales in administration by way of a ‘pre-pack’ to a connected party purchaser came into force.

The centrepiece of the reforms is a new requirement for a connected party purchaser to obtain an opinion from an independent ‘evaluator’ on whether the terms of the sale are reasonable.

While the reforms add additional process points that must be navigated in relevant cases, they will bring improved transparency to an important rescue tool which has, at times, attracted warranted criticism.

At 11pm on 31 December 2020, the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) came into effect implementing the UK’s exit from the single market. The TCA covers some important things in great detail and some things more scantly. Unfortunately for insolvency practitioners, it is largely silent on almost all issues relating to insolvency, meaning that, despite not technically having a ‘no-deal’ Brexit, for insolvency practitioners it may certainly feel that way.

Recognition of insolvency proceedings

Yesterday the UK Insolvency Service released their quarterly statistics spanning October to December 2019. These confirm that liquidations and administrations in 2019 hit levels not seen for over five years. This signals a potentially serious underlying concern about the UK economy.

This briefing covers Brexit implications of restructuring and insolvency, in particular it discusses the implications on the European Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings and recognition of insolvency judgments and how schemes of arrangement will be impacted by Brexit.

The Pensions Regulator (TPR) has announced that it has withdrawn moral hazard proceedings against Chemtura Manufacturing UK Limited and its US parent, Chemtura Corporation. This follows an agreement being reached by Chemtura with the trustees of the Great Lakes UK Limited Pension Plan (the Plan) over its funding package.

The US Bankruptcy Court has issued a declaratory judgment that the relevant clause flipping priority from the swap counterparty to the noteholders constituted an ipso facto provision and was therefore unenforceable – a judgment that produces a different result under US law to that established by the Court of Appeal in the Perpetual Trustee case from November 2009.

In Bridge Trustees Limited v Noel Penny, Judge Purle QC, sitting as an additional Judge of the High Court, held that the Court could use its inherent jurisdiction to permit an independent trustee to distribute surplus in a scheme that was winding-up. Under the Pensions Act 1995, an independent trustee is appointed to exercise powers otherwise conferred on the employer where an insolvency practitioner begins to act in relation to a company.

Summary

The recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the joined cases of Rubin and another v Eurofinance SA and others and New Cap Reinsurance Corporation (in liquidation) and another v A E Grant and others [2012] UKSC 46, issued on 24 October 2012, established that judgments avoiding pre-bankruptcy transactions (“avoidance judgments”) made by non-EU foreign courts (including U.S. bankruptcy courts) have no special enforceability status in England and Wales compared to ordinary judgments.

Last week the Court of Appeal of England and Wales handed down its decision in four appeals which raise a number of questions of construction in relation to derivatives in the form of interest rate swaps and forward freight agreements documented under the International Swaps and Derivatives Association Inc. Master Agreement (the “ISDA Master Agreement”).¹ In particular, the decision focuses on the interpretation of section 2(a)(iii) of the ISDA Master Agreement.

Key Points

On 29 February, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom handed down its judgment on the treatment of client money that had not been segregated, or was improperly segregated, as at the date Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (“LBIE”) entered administration. The Supreme Court found that: