Can a Company Voluntary Arrangement (“CVA”) complete, but still remain in place and bind creditors?
The simple answer is yes; but it does require (a) the terms of the CVA to be carefully drafted to allow notice of completion to be filed before the end of the CVA term; (b) compliance with the terms of the CVA, and (c) careful consideration of the position of the supervisors, creditors and company.
The scheme offers a credible implementation alternative, but no “one size fits all” solution exists for German credits.
German credits in sectors such as real estate, automotive, and energy face a worsening macro backdrop. At the same time, the available toolkit for financial restructurings has expanded, offering multiple options without the need for recourse to insolvency proceedings.
TODAY, THE EAGERLY-AWAITED JUDGMENT HAS BEEN HANDED DOWN BY MR JUSTICE ZACAROLI IN RESPECT OF THE APPLICATION FOR DIRECTIONS MADE BY OFFICE-HOLDERS OF A NUMBER OF FAILED ENERGY SUPPLIERS.
The impact of this judgment will be felt much wider than just within the applicants' insolvent estates and it is relevant to any office-holder or unsecured creditor of a failed energy supplier.
Whilst creditors’ voluntary liquidations (CVLs) have spiralled in number in recent months, the formerly popular company voluntary arrangement (CVA) has fallen out of the limelight. There were only 29 registered CVAs in Q3 2022, representing just 1% of recorded company insolvencies and languishing behind administrations (also down in number compared with Q2 2022).
A falling trend
Over the past decade there has been an influx of small- and medium-sized entrants to the U.K. gas supplier market, which is supervised by Great Britain's[1] independent energy regulator, the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem).[2] According to Ofgem, this market development had the effect of increasing price competition and putting pressure on incumbent suppliers to improve customer service for consumers.[3]
The Supreme Court, in a key judgment handed down on 5 October 2022 (BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and others [2022] UKSC 25), has provided some important clarification around the scope of directors’ duties in the context of companies that are nearing insolvency.
Factual background
The High Court of England and Wales has recently provided welcome clarification around the nature of events of default under derivatives contracts governed by the ISDA Master Agreement, in particular in relation to whether an insolvency related event of default can be cured and so cease to be continuing. This brings to an end a long running debate around the extent to which, and for how long, a party can continue to rely on the condition precedent to payment contained in the ISDA framework documentation where the other party is subject to such an event of default.
Two years on from PCP Capital Partners LLP and another v. Barclays Bank Plc [2020] EWHC 1393 (Comm), the High Court has declined to extend the scope of what constitutes a waiver of legal professional privilege. The case of Henderson & Jones Limited v.
Introduction
On 5 October 2022, the UK Supreme Court delivered its long-awaited judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v. Sequana SA and others [2022] UKSC 25 ("Sequana Case") which concerns the question of the trigger point when directors must have regard to the interests of creditors ("Creditor Duty"). This case raised questions of considerable importance for Malaysian company law.
Over a decade after Lehman’s insolvency, the English High Court handed down a key judgement in Grant v FR Acquisitions Corporation (Europe) Ltd [1] on 11 October 2022. The judgement provides commentary on when certain Events of Default have occurred and are “continuing”.