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.'
In our last blogpost (here) we reported how the court had, for the first time, exercised its power under s. 901C(4) Companies Act 2006 to exclude a company’s members and all but one class of its creditors from voting on a restructuring plan under Part 26A. The facts of this case are set out in more detail in that blogpost.
Summary
For the first time, the court has exercised its power under s. 901C(4) Companies Act 2006 to exclude a company’s members and all but one class of its creditors from voting on a restructuring plan under Part 26A. The court was satisfied that only one class of creditors had a genuine economic interest in the company and noted that “this was not a marginal case”.
Key drivers for the court’s decision (see more detail below) were:
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.