Overview
On 12 May 2021, the High Court sanctioned three inter-conditional restructuring plans, under the Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006, for certain English subsidiaries of the Virgin Active group, despite major opposition of certain landlords.[1] In the landmark decision, the High Court exercised its discretion to cram-down multiple classes of dissenting landlords in each plan, compromising their claims.
STOP RIGHT NOW, THANK YOU VERY MUCH – I NEED SOME TIME FOR A RESCUE.
THE PART A1 MORATORIUM
The moratorium is an insolvency process introduced by the Corporate Insolvency Governance Act 2020. It allows a financially distressed company to obtain temporary protection from creditor action, while the company attempts to rescue itself as a going concern. It is a debtor-in-possession process, overseen by a monitor—an insolvency practitioner.
Who can use it?
The UK’s reformed restructuring regime shows its force with the first successful cross-class cram-down following the introduction of the new restructuring plan. A quick legal update on the key features of the restructuring plan and the analysis of the recent cases can be found in the infographic below.
Contributors to this update were Howard Morris, Amrit Khosa, Jai Mudhar, Joe Donaghey, and Haania Amir.
The Bankruptcy Protector
In City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton, No. 19-357, 2021 WL 125106, at *1 (U.S. Jan. 14, 2021), the United States Supreme Court considered the issue of whether the mere retention of estate property after the filing of a bankruptcy petition violates section 362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code. Reversing the Seventh Circuit and resolving a split among the circuits, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously on January 14, 2021 “that mere retention of property does not violate the [automatic stay in] § 362(a)(3).”
Bankruptcy experts are applauding a proposed change to the Paycheck Protection Program that will allow small business debtors to access loans under federal COVID-19 relief packages, correcting what they say was a mistake in early versions of the aid program that left bankrupt companies without a valuable tool for surviving the pandemic.
On June 22, U.S. Circuit Judge Judge Jerry Smith issued a short, three-page opinion in the case Hidalgo County Emergency Service Foundation v. Carranza that appeared, at first blush, to be a death blow to many debtors' ability to obtain Paycheck Protection Program, or PPP, loans under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security, or CARES, Act.
In Lane v. Bank of New York Mellon (In re Lane), No. 18-60059, 2020 WL 2832270 (9th Cir. June 1, 2020), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was asked to decide whether a bankruptcy court may void a lien under section 506(d) of the Bankruptcy Code when a claim relating to the lien is disallowed because the creditor who filed the proof of claim did not prove that it was the person entitled to enforce the debt the lien secures. Employing a narrow reading of section 506(d), the Ninth Circuit answered the question in the negative.
One of the landmark protections enacted by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security, or CARES, Act on March 27 was the Paycheck Protection Program, or PPP. Under the program, small businesses (e.g., those with fewer than 500 employees) — and certain other businesses in specific industries — are eligible to receive loans that will be fully forgiven if utilized under the terms of the program, including applying at least 75% of the funds received from the loans to payment of payroll expenses.
Insolvency intersected with the UK government’s response to the coronavirus pandemic in an application to the High Court by the administrators of restaurant chain Carluccio’s. Considering the government’s Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (the “Scheme”), the court held that: