On 15 August 2022, the UK High Court handed down judgment in Oceanfill Ltd v Nuffield Health Wellbeing Ltd and Cannons Group Ltd.
Background
The claim was for rent and other arrears by Oceanfill, the landlord of a gym in Leeds. It was brought against Nuffield, the original tenant and Cannons, the original guarantor under the lease.
Nuffield had assigned the lease to Virgin Active in 2000, guaranteeing the performance of Virgin Active as tenant and Cannons had given a guarantee of Nuffield's obligations.
Virgin Active restructuring plan
In Re Swiss Cottage [2022] EWHC 1495 (Ch), junior creditors argued that administrators appointed to two companies had exceeded their powers and breached their duties when selling two properties.
Background
The High Court has sanctioned the restructuring plan of ED&F Holdings Ltd, providing further clarity on the exercise of its discretion to sanction a plan using cross-class cram down.
Background
At the convening hearing, the court ordered that five creditor and two member class meetings be held. All but one of the creditor classes approved the plan by large majorities.
Sanction hearing
The English High Court has sanctioned Smile Telecom Holding Limited's (Smile) restructuring plan, despite there being no parallel restructuring proceedings in Mauritius, the place of Smile's incorporation.
Background
The temporary restrictions on the winding up of companies were lifted on 31 March 2022. This means the legal regime governing insolvency has returned to its pre-pandemic approach.
The pre-31 March position
The English High Court has rejected a creditor's application to bring a moratorium to an end following the monitors' decision not to terminate the moratorium.
Background
A monitor must terminate the moratorium if they 'think' that the company is unable to pay any pre-moratorium debts for which the company does not have a 'payment holiday'. Surprisingly, debts arising under an agreement involving 'financial services' are excluded from the payment holiday.
Decision
On 21 December 2021, the UK government launched the future of insolvency regulation consultation, proposing significant changes to insolvency regulation which it says 'has not kept pace with developments in the insolvency market.'
There has been much discussion concerning the recent district court appellate decision in Purdue Pharma. See In re Purdue Pharma, Case No. 21 cv 7532 (Master Case), 2021 WL 5979108 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2021). We have been tracking developments relating to Purdue Pharma and issues concerning third-party releases: Purdue Pharma: Is Protection of Third Parties by the Automatic Stay an Oxymoron?
On May 7, 2021, we issued a legal alert regarding third-party releases as part of the plan of reorganization in the Perdue Pharma case. [Purdue Pharma: Is Protection of Third Parties by the Automatic Stay an Oxymoron?] The order confirming that plan was appealed and our subsequent legal alert dated December 21, 2021 discussed the decision by Judge Colleen McMahon of the U.S.
On May 7, 2021, we issued a client alert regarding the Perdue Pharma case and the possibility that the bankruptcy case could include a release of individual non-debtor members of the Sackler family. At that time, a plan which contained terms that would effectively extend the automatic stay protections was confirmed by Judge Robert D. Drain, who presided over the bankruptcy case in the Southern District of New York.