As practitioners we pour over notices of intention to appoint (NOIA) and notices of appointment of administrators (NOA) to make sure every detail is accurate. Why? Because no one wants to risk an invalid appointment because there was a minor mistake or error that was overlooked. Understandably errors occur, particularly when the appointment of administrators often happens at speed, with all parties inevitably juggling many balls. Prescribed information may have been missed, or incorrectly stated and procedural steps may have been inadvertently forgotten.

For those that are that way inclined (which includes us at #SPBRestructuring!), the 500 plus page Wright v Chappell judgment which sets out the BHS wrongful trading claim against its former directors makes for an interesting read. It paints a colourful picture of the downfall of the BHS group, from the point that it was sold for £1 to its eventual demise into administration and then liquidation. You can make your own mind up about the characters involved, but the story is a sorry one, with creditors ultimately suffering the most.

No, it isn’t. We now have two cases where the Court has confirmed that insolvency practitioners do not need the consent of paid secured creditors when extending an administration under para. 78 of Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”).

This question was considered in the recent case of Pindar where the judge concluded that an administration had been validly extended where the consent of one of the secured creditors (who had been paid) was not obtained.

The UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA has issued a consultation about proposed changes to its Guidance for Insolvency Practitioners. The aim is to clarify existing guidance and provide more information to insolvency practitioners (IPs) on how to deal with regulated firms.

As discussed in our prior blog entitled “New York’s Sovereign Debt Restructuring Proposals,”[1] three bills were introduced in the New York state legislature to overhaul the way sovereign debt restructurings are handled in New York. Those bills sought to implement a comprehensive mechanism for restructuring sovereign debt, limit recovery on certain sovereign debt claims, and amend the champerty defense.

While there is a statutory requirement to register most forms of security granted by limited companies incorporated in the UK at Companies House, it is worth remembering that there is no statutory requirement for the holder of registered security to inform Companies House if, e.g., the debt secured by a registered charge has been satisfied.

In this note, we provide a high-level overview of key restructuring cases from last year in the US, Asia Pacific and Australia and consider the outlook in 2024 for restructuring transactions. 

US

In March 2022, the International Monetary Fund (the “IMF”) assessed Sri Lanka’s public debt to be unsustainable after the country entered the pandemic with thin reserve buffers, high debt levels, and no fiscal space. The IMF’s determination prompted Sri Lanka to begin restructuring its debt the following month. As part of that process, Sri Lanka adopted an “Interim Policy” of suspending debt service on the following affected debts:

There are a few things that we can be almost certain of in 2024, and others are things to add to the watchlist, but with a potential change in government on the cards, there are likely to be a few curveballs thrown into the mix that none of us can predict.

Increasing Insolvencies