The recent High Court decision in Re Petropavlovsk Plc [2022] EWHC 2097 (Ch) considers the interaction of UK insolvency procedure and the sanctions regime imposed on Russia. 

Background 

Administrators were appointed to the English holding company of Russian gold mining group, Petropavlovsk Plc, in July 2022. The holding company was not sanctioned but sanctions had affected its ability to refinance and to pay its debts as they fell due.

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

On 7 July 2022 the UK government launched a consultation on the implementation of two model laws adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNICTRAL): the Model Law on Recognition and Enforcement of Insolvency-Related Judgments and the Model Law on Enterprise Group Insolvency. The government claims that the consultation signals the UK's 'ongoing commitment to mutual cooperation and international best practice' in cross-border insolvencies.

Background

The court sanctioned one of two potential schemes of arrangement for Amigo Loans Ltd (Amigo) and approved a plan that provided for two possible outcomes.

Background

Amigo provided guarantor loans to customers with poor credit scores. Amigo owed customers and the Financial Ombudsman Service £375 million for customer complaints and was insolvent.

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

“[C]ourts may account for hypothetical preference actions within a hypothetical [C]hapter 7 liquidation” to hold a defendant bank (“Bank”) liable for a payment it received within 90 days of a debtor’s bankruptcy, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on March 7, 2017.In re Tenderloin Health, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4008, *4 (9th Cir. March 7, 2017).

The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Bankruptcy Rules”) require each corporate party in an adversary proceeding (i.e., a bankruptcy court suit) to file a statement identifying the holders of “10% or more” of the party’s equity interests. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7007.1(a). Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn, relying on another local Bankruptcy Rule (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. R.

A Chapter 11 debtor “cannot nullify a preexisting obligation in a loan agreement to pay post-default interest solely by proposing a cure,” held a split panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Nov. 4, 2016. In re New Investments Inc., 2016 WL 6543520, *3 (9th Cir. Nov. 4, 2016) (2-1).

While a recent federal bankruptcy court ruling provides some clarity as to how midstream gathering agreements may be treated in Chapter 11 cases involving oil and gas exploration and production companies (“E&Ps”), there are still many questions that remain. This Alert analyzes and answers 10 important questions raised by the In re Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation decision of March 8, 2016.[1]

An asset purchaser’s payments into segregated accounts for the benefit of general unsecured creditors and professionals employed by the debtor (i.e., the seller) and its creditors’ committee, made in connection with the purchase of all of the debtor’s assets, are not property of the debtor’s estate or available for distribution to creditors according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit — even when some of the segregated accounts were listed as consideration in the governing asset purchase agreement. ICL Holding Company, Inc., et al. v.