On 15 November 2021, the English Court released its reasoned judgment for the sanction of Amicus Finance Plc's (Amicus) restructuring plan.
Background
Amicus, a short term property lender, entered administration in 2018. The administrators proposed a restructuring plan to compromise creditors' claims, exit the administration and ultimately restore the company as a going concern. The company faced imminent liquidation if the plan was not approved. Secured creditor, Crowdstacker, an online peer-to-peer lending platform, opposed the plan.
The High Court recently decided that a prosecution could be brought against an administrator under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act (TULRCA) in R (on the application of Palmer) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates' Court [2021] EWHC 3013.
Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, adopted in all fifty states plus the District of Columbia with relatively few variations, sets out, among other things, the rules to be followed when obtaining a security interest in personal property collateral to secure a loan. The basic premise of Article 9 is that if the lender follows the rules, it should be protected against third parties, including other creditors or a bankruptcy trustee, who would seek to challenge the lender’s security interest or the priority of the security interest.
In its much-discussed decision, City of Chicago v. Fulton, 141 S. Ct. 585 (2020), the Supreme Court ruled that the City of Chicago (“City”) was not in violation of Section 362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code for failing to release an impounded car to a debtor in bankruptcy.
Periodically courts remind corporate directors that their decisions to act or to refrain from acting during the course of managing the affairs of a corporation are not without limitations. It is well established that corporate directors owe fiduciary duties, and more specifically, a duty of care and a duty of loyalty to corporate shareholders. Those duties should always be at the front of mind of every director when any action or inaction is contemplated, but in particular, when addressing challenging issues facing the corporation.
The High Court recently dismissed a landlord creditor's application to overturn a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) initiated by coffee shop chain Caffé Nero. Here, we recap the key facts of the case and summarise the highlights of the High Court's ruling.
The facts
In November 2020, Caffé Nero – hit hard by the COVID-19 pandemic – proposed a CVA to creditors to compromise rent arrears (at 30p in the £1) and reduce future rents for the company's premises.
On 29 October 2021, the UK Insolvency Service published its insolvency statistics for Q3 2021. Notably, the number of company insolvencies was 17% higher than in Q2 2021 and 43% higher than in Q3 2020. This was driven by an increase in company voluntary liquidations (CVLs) to the highest quarterly level for 12 years.
The UK government has lifted the current restrictions on statutory demands but imposed new temporary requirements for winding-up petitions presented from 1 October 2021 until 31 March 2022. The measures aim to protect companies from aggressive creditor enforcement as the economy opens up and other protections are lifted.
New requirements
In a recent judgment, the English court refused to sanction a restructuring plan put forward by oil and gas producer, Hurricane Energy PLC.
Background