The vast majority of corporate debt issuances are made pursuant to a trustee structure. This approach affords investors the advantage of uniformity of treatment and facilitates collective action, as opposed to the alternative 'fiscal agency' or direct issuance structure. But what happens when an individual investor in a global note structure seeks to take direct enforcement action against an issuer?

Executive Summary

Battered by the COVID-19 pandemic and the decline in passengers travelling to Hong Kong, Hong Kong Airlines (HKA) has become the latest carrier to undergo a debt restructuring. Its restructuring plan was sanctioned by the English court on 9 December 2022 and its scheme of arrangement was sanctioned by the Hong Kong court on 14 December 2022.

In summary:

The Judgment of the Supreme Court in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA was handed down on 5 October 2022.

The Supreme Court considered the circumstances in which company directors must exercise their duties under s.172 Companies Act 2006 (CA06) with regard to the interests of the creditors and affirmed the position reached by the Court of Appeal.

Comment

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.

In bankruptcy as in federal jurisprudence generally, to characterize something with the near-epithet of “federal common law” virtually dooms it to rejection.

Background to the Restructuring Plan

The UK has introduced the Restructuring Plan; a new, flexible court supervised restructuring tool. The Restructuring Plan draws upon features of the existing Companies Act 2006 scheme of arrangement procedure (which remains available) but includes features which are new to the UK but similar to those under U.S. Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings.

In January 2020 we reported that, after the reconsideration suggested by two Supreme Court justices and revisions to account for the Supreme Court’s Merit Management decision,[1] the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stood by its origina

It seems to be a common misunderstanding, even among lawyers who are not bankruptcy lawyers, that litigation in federal bankruptcy court consists largely or even exclusively of disputes about the avoidance of transactions as preferential or fraudulent, the allowance of claims and the confirmation of plans of reorganization. However, with a jurisdictional reach that encompasses “all civil proceedings . . .

I don’t know if Congress foresaw, when it enacted new Subchapter V of Chapter 11 of the Code[1] in the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (“SBRA”), that debtors in pending cases would seek to convert or redesignate their cases as Subchapter V cases when SBRA became effective on February 19, 2020, but it was foreseeable.

In March 2020, Business Secretary Alok Sharma announced that provisions on wrongful trading would be suspended. The move came as part of a wider package of measures that sought to provide assistance to businesses – and their beleaguered boards – experiencing financial distress due to Covid-19.

Now set out in the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA), which was passed on 26 June 2020, the provisions adapt the wrongful trading regime making directors’ liability for the “relevant period” unlikely.

Why does it matter?