Restructuring Plans (RPs)

2024 was a year of firsts for RPs, and as case law in this area continues to evolve, there is little doubt that this will carry through into 2025.

It would be remiss not to expect to see more RPs in 2025. News of Thames Water's restructuring is "splashed" all over the press and Speciality Steel's plan might see the first "cram up" of creditors, but there seems a long way to go to get creditors onside.

The Singapore International Commercial Court (the "SICC"), a division of the General Division of the High Court and part of the Supreme Court of Singapore, was established in 2015 as a trusted neutral forum to meet increasing demand for effective transnational dispute resolution. It recently considered, as a matter of first impression for the SICC, whether to approve a prepackaged scheme of arrangement for a group of Vietnam-based real estate investment companies under Singapore's recently enacted Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (the "IRDA").

As the enactment of chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code approaches its 20-year anniversary, U.S. bankruptcy courts are still grappling with some unresolved issues concerning how its provisions should be applied to best harmonize cross-border bankruptcy cases. One of those issues was the subject of a bench ruling handed down by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.

Categorisation of a charge as fixed or floating will have a significant impact on how assets are dealt with on insolvency and creditor outcomes.

Typical fixed charge assets include land, property, shares, plant and machinery, intellectual property such as copyrights, patents and trademarks and goodwill.

Typical floating charge assets include stock and inventory, trade debtors, cash and currency, movable plant and machinery (such as vehicles), and raw materials and other consumable items used by the business.

The U.S. Supreme Court handed down three bankruptcy rulings to finish the Term ended in July 2024. The decisions address the validity of nonconsensual third-party releases in chapter 11 plans, the standing of insurance companies to object to "insurance neutral" chapter 11 plans, and the remedy for overpayment of administrative fees in chapter 11 cases to the Office of the U.S. Trustee. We discuss each of them below.

U.S. Supreme Court Bars Nonconsensual Third-Party Releases in Chapter 11 Plans

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.

Courts disagree over whether a foreign bankruptcy case can be recognized under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code if the foreign debtor does not reside or have assets or a place of business in the United States. In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit staked out its position on this issue in Drawbridge Special Opportunities Fund LP v. Barnet (In re Barnet), 737 F.3d 238 (2d Cir. 2013), ruling that the provision of the Bankruptcy Code requiring U.S. residency, assets, or a place of business applies in chapter 15 cases as well as cases filed under other chapters.

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.