After a somewhat leisurely start, case law regarding the new restructuring plan in Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 now seems to be picking up pace.

I had an interesting conversation this week with the Evening Standard, considering the prospect of further company voluntary arrangements, or 'CVAs' on the UK high street as the year progresses.

The vast majority of ‘bricks and mortar’ retailers, as well as hospitality venues, are desperately seeking ways to cut their fixed costs to improve their chances of riding-out the pandemic. Leasehold obligations are often among the most significant of those fixed costs, and the CVA offers a well-tested route to compromise those obligations.

On 13 January 2020, the High Court sanctioned the restructuring plans proposed by three UK companies in the DeepOcean group, under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006.

On 29 January 2020, the Insolvency Service published its quarterly insolvency statistics for October to December 2020 (Q3 2020).

The Court of Appeal judgment handed down on 9 November 2020 in the case of HH Aluminium & Building Products Ltd and another v Bell and another (Joint Trustees In Bankruptcy of Ide) [2020] EWCA Civ 1469 provides a clear warning to applicants: serve your application notice without delay, particularly if a limitation period is close to expiry.

Factual background:

In this article we will cover the notice requirements for an out of court administration appointment by a company or its directors, and look at the recent case of Re Tokenhouse VB Ltd (Formerly VAT Bridge 7 Ltd) [2020] EWHC 3171 (Ch).

The notice requirements

The UK Government has today announced plans to introduce new legislation which will require mandatory independent scrutiny of 'pre-pack' administration sales, where connected parties, such as the insolvent company's existing directors or shareholders, are involved in the transaction.

On 4 September 2020, the High Court sanctioned a restructuring plan of Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited (Virgin) under the new Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006, brought in by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA); this is the first time the court has sanctioned a restructuring plan under the new Part 26A.

Although the Sunbird scheme of arrangement was approved by the relevant creditors, sanction was refused by Mr. Justice Snowdon, who highlighted:

• a ‘paucity of information provided by the company as part of the scheme process’, and
• a failure to engage with creditors ‘whom the directors clearly felt were irrelevant or would be an obstacle to their plans’.

He remarked that the company’s approach 'fell a considerable distance short of what was required for a fair process'.

Despite commentators’ recent focus on the new Part 26A restructuring plan, introduced in late June by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020, the scheme of arrangement under Part 26 of the Companies Act 2006 (“scheme”) remains a popular tool for companies to reach a compromise or arrangement with their creditors and/or its members.