The English High Court has exercised its cram down power and sanctioned the Part 26A restructuring plans proposed by four of Cineworld’s UK operating companies, in face of significant opposition from its landlord creditors, including a novel injunction application by two landlords to exclude their leases from the plans. In sanctioning the plan, Cineworld’s UK Group avoided administration at the end of September.

The Galapagos Group has secured comprehensive affirmation of its 2019 debt restructuring (the “Restructuring”) from the English High Court. This decision is a significant step towards resolution of the highly contested restructuring, and provides market participants with further clarity and certainty when it comes to implementing lender-led transactions in future.

Introduction

Today, the UK Supreme Court considered for the first time the existence, content and engagement of the so-called “creditor duty”: the alleged duty of a company’s directors to consider, or to act in accordance with, the interests of the company’s creditors when the company becomes insolvent, or when it approaches, or is at real risk of, insolvency.

On Wednesday 24 March, the government confirmed that it will be extending the current temporary restrictions on statutory demands and winding-up petitions and the temporary suspension of directors’ liability for wrongful trading put in place under the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020, until 30 June 2021.

The extensions, set out in the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Extension of the Relevant Period) Regulations 2021, laid before parliament on 24 March, will come into effect on 26 March 2021.

Today the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy announced that certain temporary measures put in place under the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (“CIGA”), which came into force on 26 June, will be extended.

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Extension of the Relevant Period) Regulations 2020 were laid before the UK Parliament today and will come into force on 29 September 2020. Pursuant to these regulations, statutory demands and winding-up petitions will continue to be restricted until 31 December 2020.

The new UK legislation for companies in financial difficulty represents a fundamental shift in approach to restructuring in Europe and adds an important new tool to the UK restructuring framework. The availability of a plan proposed under the new Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (a “Restructuring Plan”) will undoubtedly change how many distressed companies seek to address their financial difficulties. However, until case law is developed, there will remain considerable uncertainty as to how the Restructuring Plan will work in practice.

Today, the Government published the highly anticipated Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the “CIGB”).  It legislates for the landmark changes to the UK’s corporate insolvency regime and the temporary suspension of the statutory provisions on wrongful trading announced by the Business Secretary on 28 March 2020 (see Weil’s European Restructuring Watch update of 30 March 2020).

Until 2013, no circuit court of appeals had weighed in on the implications of the U.S. Supreme Court’s pronouncement in the 203 North LaSalle case that property retained by a junior stakeholder under a cram-down chapter 11 plan in exchange for new value “without benefit of market valuation” violates the “absolute priority rule.” See Bank of Amer. Nat’l Trust & Savings Ass’n v. 203 North LaSalle Street P’ship, 526 U.S. 434 (1999), reversing Matter of 203 North LaSalle Street P’ship, 126 F.3d 955 (7th Cir. 1997).

2012 is shaping up as a year of bankruptcy first impressions for the Ninth Circuit. The court of appeals sailed into uncharted bankruptcy waters twice already this year in the same chapter 11 case. On January 24, the court ruled in In re Thorpe Insulation Co., 2012 WL 178998 (9th Cir. Jan. 24, 2012) ("Thorpe I"), that an appeal by certain nonsettling asbestos insurers of an order confirming a chapter 11 plan was not equitably moot because, among other things, the plan had not been "substantially consummated" under the court's novel construction of that statutory term.