Oceanfill Ltd v Nuffield Health Wellbeing Ltd and Cannons Group Ltd. [2022] EWHC 2178 (Ch)

A recent decision of the High Court has given helpful clarity on the effects of the UK's restructuring plan procedure on lease agreements and the implications for lease guarantors.

The Virgin Active plan

Background

Houst Ltd (“the Company”) is a property management company which specialises in short-term holiday rentals through an online platform. It is an SME (small or medium-sized enterprise) with total liabilities of approximately £10 million at stake. The Company became both cashflow and balance sheet insolvent having experienced financial difficulty during the Covid pandemic and this resulted in creditors having threatened winding-up petitions.

Summary

The Hong Kong Court and the US Bankruptcy Court have made conflicting comments regarding the discharge of New York law-governed debt by a foreign scheme of arrangement, where that scheme is the subject of recognition under Chapter 15 of the US Bankruptcy Code.

The Insolvency Service has published a report on the research commissioned by it on the use of Company Voluntary Arrangements ("CVAs") by large companies in the retail trade, accommodation and food and beverage sectors.

In May 2021, the UK Government published a Consultation which set out its proposals for targeted (but significant) amendments to certain aspects of the existing UK insolvency arrangements for insurers.

The first case to consider the requirement of a monitor to terminate a moratorium if they think a company is unable to pay certain debts was heard by the High Court on 4 February 2021. The case provides further clarity on the UK standalone moratorium process and is an example of a moratorium being used in order to restrain secured creditor action.

During the course of the pandemic we have seen an unprecedented level of government assistance aiming to aid businesses struggling with the effects of the pandemic. This has resulted in consistently low insolvency levels. This year we will see the lifting of certain of the restrictions and the end to some of the support initiatives that have been in place. We have outlined some of the key changes and what might be in store for 2022.

Courts disagree over whether a foreign bankruptcy case can be recognized under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code if the foreign debtor does not reside or have assets or a place of business in the United States. In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit staked out its position on this issue in Drawbridge Special Opportunities Fund LP v. Barnet (In re Barnet), 737 F.3d 238 (2d Cir. 2013), ruling that the provision of the Bankruptcy Code requiring U.S. residency, assets, or a place of business applies in chapter 15 cases as well as cases filed under other chapters.

The foundation of chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code and similar legislation enacted by other countries to govern cross-border bankruptcy cases is "comity" and cooperation among U.S. and foreign courts. The importance of these concepts was recently illustrated by a ruling handed down by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida. In In re Varig Logistica S.A., 2021 WL 5045684 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. Oct.

Despite the absence of any explicit directive in the Bankruptcy Code, it is well understood that a debtor must file a chapter 11 petition in good faith. The bankruptcy court can dismiss a bad faith filing "for cause," which has commonly been found to exist in cases where the debtor seeks chapter 11 protection as a tactic to gain an advantage in pending litigation. A ruling recently handed down by the U.S.