Snapshot

The Restructuring Plan (Plan) was introduced as part of the UK Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020, which introduced a new part 26A into the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006). The part 26A Plan provisions are largely based on the existing scheme of arrangement rules detailed under part 26 of the CA 2006, and it is often referred to as the “super scheme”.

Plans now sit alongside schemes of arrangement and company voluntary arrangements (CVAs) to provide a further restructuring option for companies and insolvency practitioners alike.

What can we say about the outcome of the GAS (Great Annual Savings Company Limited) sanction hearing that hasn’t already been reported?

It’s impossible not to comment on the fact that the plan was not sanctioned, and as a consequence of fierce opposition from HMRC that it avoided cram down. Nor that the court refused to sanction the plan on the basis that the conditions for cram down were not met – the court was not satisfied that HMRC would be better off under the plan and even if it were the judge said he would have not exercised his discretion to cram down.

‘If, at first, you don’t succeed, then try and try again’ is a fitting description for HMRC’s recent approach to restructuring plans, with its opposition of plans proposed by The Great Annual Savings Company (GAS) and Nasmyth Group Limited (Naysmyth).

The GAS sanction hearing (which is due to take place this week) will be the first time that HMRC has taken an active role contesting a restructuring plan at sanction following the case of Houst where the Court exercised its discretionary power to “cram down” HMRC.

In a previous blog about the case of Mizen we considered the case from the point of view of “guarantee stripping”, looking at how the CVA dealt with those claims. However, the CVA was challenged on a number of bases, including whether it was unfairly prejudicial as a consequence of “vote swamping”.

In this blog, we look at that aspect of the case.

A company voluntary arrangement (CVA) is a tool which has been widely utilised by companies seeking to restructure and compromise liabilities.

In recent years CVAs have been in the limelight because of attacks by landlords who feel that they have been unfairly prejudiced by the CVA terms. Largely, challenges such as those to the Regis and New Look CVAs have been unsuccessful, but arguments about unfair prejudice based on “vote swamping” were left open for future debate.

Where a commercial property is sold by a receiver or insolvency practitioner (IP), VAT must be charged on the sale if the owner had exercised and properly notified an option to tax (OTT) in respect of the property. The IP acting on behalf of the seller needs to establish whether an OTT has been made and notified so that VAT is charged , if needed.  This can be difficult if company records are in disarray, directors of the insolvent company are non-cooperative and/or the IP or receiver has limited knowledge of the property and company.

Following the sanctioning of the Good Box restructuring plan (RP) it seems the answer is yes. This might sound surprising to those familiar with schemes of arrangement, because that outcome is at odds with the long-standing decision in Re Savoy Hotels.

For those less familiar with schemes and scheme case law, the court declined to sanction the Savoy scheme because the company did not approve it, consequently the judge found that the court had no jurisdiction to sanction it.

It is difficult to predict what 2023 might hold for businesses in the UK. Given the difficult economic environment, many will already be facing a challenging start to the year. Although the challenges of the pandemic (such as lock downs) have gone, others have materialised. Energy price hikes and inflation rises continue to make trading conditions tough.

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.

以物抵债，指债权人与债务人之间存在金钱债务，双方约定将债务人财产作价交付债权人抵偿债务的行为。实践中，主要分为两种类型，包括当事人双方协商的以物抵债和民事强制执行程序中的以物抵债程序，本文仅就前种以物抵债类型进行探讨。

近年来，随着新冠疫情影响，经济形势发生变化，再加上政策调控等多重因素打击，导致地产行业遭遇寒冬，现金流频繁遭受考验。迫于资金回款压力，为了缓解僵局，地产企业推出“工抵房”“内部房”等房源以期减轻对外负债或实现现金回流。其中，“工抵房”也被称为工程抵款房，是开发商用于给工程方抵扣工程款的一种方式，也是大众所俗称以物抵债的一种常见形式。虽然，工程方的需求是现金而并非房屋，但目前经济形势下，工程方面临开发商无款支付的现实局面，只能无奈被迫接受“工抵房”。尽管“工抵房”的出现使得开发商不再面临房子无路销售的难题，同时解决了部分应付款项；工程方能获得部分“工抵房”以解决工程资金被长期拖欠的难题；购房者可以更低价格买到“工抵房”从而降低购房成本，这一循环链看似多赢，实则隐藏大量法律风险。本文将从“工抵房”的角度，以工抵债权人的视角，对以物抵债的性质、模式、法律风险等维度进行分析，以期对实践和后续研究有所贡献。

一、以物抵债协议的性质