When an employer is insolvent and administrators appointed, job losses are often an inevitable consequence. In this blog we look at the legal obligations arising where redundancies meet the threshold for collective consultation, and the implications for administrators arising out of the recent Supreme Court in the case of R (on the application of Palmer) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates Court and another.
When does the legal obligation to collectively consult apply?
Summary
In the recent case of Re Unity Group Holdings International Limited [2022] HKCFI 3419, the Hong Kong Court of First Instance sanctioned a scheme of arrangement between Unity Group Holdings International Limited and its creditors. This case confirms that the guarantor’s scheme can discharge debts owed by principal obligors who are members of the same group.
On October 17, 2022, Justice Andrea Masley of the NY Supreme Court issued a decision and order denying all but one of the motion to dismiss claims filed by Boardriders, Oaktree Capital (an equity holder, term lender, and “Sponsor” under the credit agreement), and an ad hoc group of lenders (the “Participating Lenders”) that participated in an “uptiering” transaction that included new money investments and roll-ups of existing term loan debt into new priming debt that would sit at the top of the company’s capital structure.
On October 14, 2022, the Fifth Circuit issued its decision in Ultra Petroleum, granting favorable outcomes to “unimpaired” creditors that challenged the company’s plan of reorganization and argued for payment (i) of a ~$200 million make-whole and (ii) post-petition interest at the contractual rate, not the Federal Judgment Rate. At issue on appeal was the Chapter 11 plan proposed by the “massively solvent” debtors—Ultra Petroleum Corp. (HoldCo) and its affiliates, including subsidiary Ultra Resources, Inc.
On July 6, Delaware Bankruptcy Court Judge Craig T. Goldblatt issued a memorandum opinion in the bankruptcy cases of TPC Group, Inc., growing the corpus of recent court decisions tackling “uptiering” and other similar transactions that have been dubbed by some practitioners and investors as “creditor-on-creditor violence.” This topic has been a hot button issue for a few years, playing out in a number of high profile scenarios, from J.Crew and Travelport to Serta Simmons and TriMark, among others.
In the recent case of Re Joint and Several Liquidators of Ozner Water International Holding Ltd 浩澤淨水國際控股有限公司 (In Liquidation) [2022] HKCU 940, the Hong Kong Court of First Instance (Hong Kong Court) granted an application by the liquidators (Liquidators) of Ozner Water International Holding Ltd. (Company) for a letter of request for recognition and assistance (Letter of Request) to be issued to the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court (Shenzhen Court).
In the landmark decision in case (2021)粤03认港破1号(2021) Yue 03 Ren Gang Po No. 1 (Shenzhen Court Decision), the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court (Shenzhen Court) ordered formal recognition in Mainland China of liquidators appointed by the Hong Kong Court of First Instance (Hong Kong Court) over Samson Paper Company Limited (Company) to permit the liquidators to exercise powers over the Company’s assets located in Mainland China.
On 24 February, the Government published draft regulations that, if implemented, will impose new restrictions on pre-pack administration sales to connected parties. For all `substantial disposals' (which will include `pre-pack' sales) to connected parties, taking place within eight weeks of the administrators' appointment, the administrators will either need creditor consent or a report from an independent `evaluator'.
Context
On August 26, 2020, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the Bankruptcy Code does not require subordination agreements to be strictly enforced in order for a court to confirm a cramdown plan, so long as the plan does not discriminate unfairly.
On December 19, 2019, the Second Circuit held that appellants’ state law constructive fraudulent transfer claims were preempted by virtue of the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbors that exempt transfers made in connection with a contract for the purchase, sale or loan of a security from being clawed back into the bankruptcy estate for