After a somewhat leisurely start, case law regarding the new restructuring plan in Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 now seems to be picking up pace.
On 13 January 2021, the English High Court sanctioned three interconditional Part 26A restructuring plans for the subsidiaries of DeepOcean Group Holding BV.
The plans for two of the companies were approved by the required 75% majority. While the third plan received 100% approval by secured creditors, only 64.6% of unsecured creditors voted in favour.
Consequently, at the sanction hearing the court was required to consider whether the cross-class cram down mechanism in the restructuring plan should be engaged for the first time in the UK.
On 11 February 2021, the English High Court confirmed in gategroup Guarantee Limited that restructuring plans are insolvency proceedings so are not covered by the Lugano Convention.
One of the debt instruments subject to the gategroup restructuring plan contains an exclusive Swiss court jurisdiction clause. Under the Lugano Convention, proceedings relating to "civil and commercial matters" must generally be brought in the jurisdiction benefitting from the exclusive jurisdiction clause.
On 13 January 2020, the High Court sanctioned the restructuring plans proposed by three UK companies in the DeepOcean group, under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006.
In Uralkali v Rowley and another [2020] EWHC 3442 (Ch) – a UK High Court case relating to the administration of a Formula 1 racing team – an unsuccessful bidder for the company's business and assets sued the administrators, arguing that the bid process had been negligently misrepresented and conducted.
The court found that the administrators did not owe a duty of care to the disappointed bidder. It rejected the claimant's criticisms of the company’s sale process and determined that the administrators had conducted it "fairly and properly" and were not, in fact, negligent.
In Uralkali v Rowley and another [2020] EWHC 3442 (Ch) – a UK High Court case relating to the administration of a Formula 1 racing team – an unsuccessful bidder for the company's business and assets sued the administrators, arguing that the bid process had been negligently misrepresented and conducted.
The court found that the administrators did not owe a duty of care to the disappointed bidder. It rejected the claimant's criticisms of the company’s sale process and determined that the administrators had conducted it "fairly and properly" and were not, in fact, negligent.
After a year in which numerous businesses have relied on various forms of government support to stay afloat, many will be hoping that 2021 offers the chance to emerge from this period and resume some degree of normal trading. Certainly, the coming year will be make-or-break time for those businesses that have been most impacted by the pandemic – and as government assistance is wound back, the demand for working capital funding is likely to be high.
With over a third of hospitality businesses currently at moderate to severe risk of insolvency (according to the most recent ONS survey), many in the sector are urgently considering the best way forward. One strategy, which we have recently seen a number of casual dining businesses like Carluccios and Gourmet Burger Kitchen deploy, is a ‘prepack’ administration. However, although the deals involving household names may grab the headlines, pre-packs are also widely used by small and micro businesses.
On 8 October the Insolvency Service published a report on pre-pack sales in administrations, together with draft regulations imposing a mandatory referral to independent scrutiny in the case of pre-packaged sales to connected parties.
This article, written by Tim Carter and Helen Martin, considers the background to the proposed regulations, their content and their potential impact.
Background