In Re AFM (1932) Ltd (in liquidation) [2021] EWHC 3460 (Ch) the court confirmed that where an applicant is already contractually entitled – as against another party - to be reimbursed, together with interest, by that other party in an amount equivalent to the value transferred by that applicant under a related transaction, there cannot be a transaction at an undervalue pursuant to section 238 of the Insolvency Act 1986.

Facts

The FCA has issued proposed guidance on its approach to compromises by regulated firms, which will have the effect of putting consumer outcomes front and centre for any firm proposing a compromise with retail customers. With a particular focus on schemes (or other compromises) relating to redress liabilities - for instance in relation to mis-selling claims - the guidance inevitably recalls many of the aspects of the ill-conceived scheme proposed by Amigo Loans last year, which the High Court ultimately refused to sanction.

Welcome to the first edition of Restructuring Watch from the Akin Gump financial restructuring team in London. These editions will provide short and accessible updates on key legal developments in the European restructuring and insolvency world. 

It is almost inevitable that despite the ongoing hard work by the FCA to protect customers against ruthless and reckless “investment advisors”, the number of financial scams will continue to rise over the next couple of years.

Creditors of English Defence League founder Tommy Robinson (real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon) have appointed a licensed insolvency practitioner to act as his Trustee in Bankruptcy to investigate any claims against him and seek to recover any hidden assets.

Robinson applied for bankruptcy shortly after his divorce in February 2021, and while libel proceedings were ongoing against him. A bankruptcy order was made on 3 March 2021. In July 2021, Robinson was ordered to pay £100,000 in damages, together with legal costs, on top of his bankruptcy debts, which are estimated at £2m.

• Commercial rent arrears continue to accumulate as a result of the pandemic, such that arrears are estimated to reach £9 billion by March 2022 and comprise a much larger slice of the typical debt stack than they did pre-pandemic.
• The UK government has proposed a binding arbitration scheme to help resolve the arrears and further extend the existing protections from enforcement and insolvency procedures that

In what is believed to be the first reported decision on this issue, the High Court has allowed an appeal under section 205(4) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) against a decision of the Secretary of State to defer the dissolution of a company in liquidation.

A link to the judgement can be found here.

The facts

On 14 January 2022, it was published in the Official Journal of the Spanish Parliament, the draft law of the Insolvency Act for the transposition of Directive (EU) 2019/1023 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on preventive restructuring frameworks, debt waivers and disqualifications, and on measures to improve the efficiency of restructuring, insolvency and debt waiver procedures, and amending Directive (EU) 2017/1132 (Restructuring and Insolvency Directive) (hereinafter, the "Draft Law").

The persisting spectre of the pandemic continues to create uncertainty in the market. Over the last 18 months, insolvency figures remained consistently low due to the government support which has been in place. With the prospect of that support coming to an end there is likely to be a reckoning, but when that will begin is unclear. Overall, this next year is likely to be one of resolving loose ends and tidying up before the economy can take off afresh.

Market outlook

Summary

For the first time, the court has exercised its power under s. 901C(4) Companies Act 2006 to exclude a company’s members and all but one class of its creditors from voting on a restructuring plan under Part 26A. The court was satisfied that only one class of creditors had a genuine economic interest in the company and noted that “this was not a marginal case”.

Key drivers for the court’s decision (see more detail below) were: