In the recent case of Loveridge v Povey and Ors [2024] EWHC 329 (Ch) a company shareholder sought to challenge the administrators’ decision to rescue a balance sheet solvent company as a going concern by securing additional funding, as opposed to pursuing a sale of the business.
Background
As seen in the recent proliferation of bankruptcy cases seeking a structured dismissal or conversion after a successful sale, debtors constantly seek creative and efficient ways to wind up a case, including through a traditional plan of liquidation. Yet, as discussed below, debtors must ensure that any proposed voting procedures for a plan comply with section 1126 of the Bankruptcy Code, or are at least supported by, or supportable with, prior precedent.
Thames Water is making waves once again with renewed discussion around a potential special administration for the beleaguered water company. We wrote last year about reports that the government and Ofwat were making contingency plans for Thames Water after its failure to raise shareholder funding to bridge a funding gap with nearly £1.4bn of its borrowings due to mature this year.
A common defense to a fraudulent transfer claim in bankruptcy concerning a securities transaction is the “safe harbor” defense under section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code. In a unique twist, a post-confirmation trust in Delaware recently argued that the safe harbor defense should not be available if the underlying transaction was illegal under the law where the debtor/transferor was incorporated.
We find ourselves in a year of transition, with (whisper it) the economy stabilising and an election tipped for the second half of 2024. Surely only a fool, in times such as these, would seek to anticipate what change could unfold in the legal landscape over the next 12 months. Challenge accepted! For 2024 we have dusted off our crystal ball and we set out below our (educated) guesses of what to expect for the year (or two) ahead…
Implementation of UNCITRAL model law on Enterprise Group Insolvency
A consensual resolution among all stakeholders is an important goal of any bankruptcy proceeding. But how can parties reach a consensual deal if financing is drying up quickly and the prospect of confirming a plan is grim? That was the issue facing the Rockport debtors (the “Debtors”) in their Delaware bankruptcy cases styled In re The RP Co. Liquidating, LLC. In this case, the Debtors filed a motion asking the bankruptcy court to approve a global settlement (the “Settlement”) with all parties-in-interest—except the Office of the United States Trustee (the “U.S. Trustee”).
The court has the power to challenge any decision of the officeholder in an insolvency process on application by a dissatisfied party. The ambit of that power depends upon the nature of the insolvency process but, broadly, the following categories of people will be entitled to apply:
As can often be the way, August was a disappointing month for many, with the dull and dreary weather casting a shadow over plans made for the school holidays. So too, it seems, was August a bad month for the business community – perhaps in some cases linked to the weather, with poorer performance by seasonal businesses reliant on fair weather custom.
On June 27, 2022, Three Arrows Capital (“3AC”), a crypto hedge fund, commenced liquidation proceedings in the British Virgin Islands and thereafter filed recognition proceedings in, among other countries, the United States and Singapore.
The curiosity with claims based on transactions defrauding creditors is that a transaction can fall within its scope when a debtor is solvent and may never ultimately enter an insolvency process, and there is no requirement of fraud. Such claims fall under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the act), and do require a debtor to have entered into a transaction at an undervalue (drawing on claims under section 238 and 339 of the act, in corporate and personal insolvency respectively) with the intention of putting assets beyond the reach of creditors.