Overview

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.

Background

The defining feature of the restructuring plan, which was introduced by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020, is the "cross class cram down" ("CCCD") mechanism it introduces as a means of imposing a settlement on recalcitrant creditors.

Overview

Judgment was handed down on 30 September sanctioning the much-trailed restructuring plans for the Cineworld UK group of companies. The sanctioning of the Plans was widely expected, but drama came at the eleventh hour as a result of two last minute challenges brought by UK Commercial Property Finance Holdings ("UKCP") and the Crown Estate (both landlords of Cineworld leases). UKCP and the Crown Estate sought injunctions - not to challenge the Plans in themselves - but to order the removal of their leases from the Plans. 

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.

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.