The High Court has clarified the grounds for challenging a CVA for guarantee creditors.

Background

Mizen Design/Build Ltd's (Mizen) directors proposed a CVA stating that this would lead to a better result for unsecured creditors than the likely alternative, administration.

The CVA compromised guarantee creditors' ability both to bring a claim against Mizen and to call upon their performance guarantees against Mizen's parent company (the Parent Guarantor).

The so-called crypto-winter and associated high profile insolvencies of major players such as FTX, Three Arrows Capital and Genesis may have dampened enthusiasm for this new asset class in some quarters. However, while volatility is likely to be an ongoing characteristic in the short and medium term, it is probably better to view recent events as a period of market correction rather than the "beginning of the end" of crypto assets.

The future for a new class of digital assets

The High Court has approved the sale of a portfolio of securities owned by Sova Capital Limited (Sova) to an unsecured creditor in consideration of the release of that creditor’s claim. The court’s approval of the transaction in this case marks the first reported decision on an unsecured credit bid for the assets of a company in administration (Re Sova Capital Limited (in special administration) [2023] EWHC 452 (Ch)).

Facts

This recent decision has opened up a new opportunity for creditors who are not satisfied with a proposal to put forward their own restructuring plan.

Background

Good Box Co Labs Limited (the Company), a fintech start-up, developed contactless payment technologies in the charity sector.

It entered administration in June 2022 on the application of NGI Systems Limited (NGI) a principal technology supplier, creditor and shareholder of the Company.

Cryptocurrency is a hot topic in the legal industry and one with which the legal world is really just starting to grapple. This is ever more prevalent with a number of recent high-profile crypto insolvencies including Three Arrows Capital, Celsius Network and FTX.

CargoLogicAir Limited (the Company) was the UK's only all-cargo main deck freight airline. Due to sanctions imposed on its Russian owner, the Company was unable to effectively trade and pay its debts as they fell due despite obtaining a 'Basic Needs Licence'. Its sole director applied to appoint administrators.

Issues

The court considered two key issues:

On 7 December 2022, the European Commission published its proposal for a directive harmonising certain aspects of insolvency law (the Insolvency Directive).

The Insolvency Directive seeks to offer more certainty and create a common minimum standard of insolvency regimes across member states, encouraging more effective cross-border investment.

It aims to harmonise three key areas of EU insolvency law (the Insolvency Directive).

Aims law:

• the recovery of assets

• the efficiency of proceedings

On 7 December 2022, the European Commission published its proposal for a directive harmonising certain aspects of insolvency law (the Insolvency Directive).

Aims

The Insolvency Directive seeks to offer more certainty and create a common minimum standard of insolvency regimes across Member States, encouraging more effective cross-border investment.

It aims to harmonise three key areas of EU insolvency law:

• the recovery of assets

• the efficiency of proceedings, and

As the chill of recession bites for homes and businesses alike, SMEs are faced with the daunting prospect of navigating their way through the bleak mid-winter. In October 2022, inflation reached 11.1% and company insolvencies were 38% higher than the same period last year. Creditors’ voluntary liquidations in the same period were 53% higher than in 2019 (i.e. pre-pandemic), continuing the theme of businesses being forced to consider this terminal insolvency process, as following the pandemic they have struggled to adapt to the challenging market conditions.

Re Bitumina Industries Ltd (in administration); Manning and another v Neste AB and another [2022].

This was an application by joint administrators for directions on the validity of a floating charge granted to a connected party at a 'relevant time' and seemingly invalid under s245 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the Act).

Background