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

In bankruptcy as in federal jurisprudence generally, to characterize something with the near-epithet of “federal common law” virtually dooms it to rejection.

In January 2020 we reported that, after the reconsideration suggested by two Supreme Court justices and revisions to account for the Supreme Court’s Merit Management decision,[1] the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stood by its origina

It seems to be a common misunderstanding, even among lawyers who are not bankruptcy lawyers, that litigation in federal bankruptcy court consists largely or even exclusively of disputes about the avoidance of transactions as preferential or fraudulent, the allowance of claims and the confirmation of plans of reorganization. However, with a jurisdictional reach that encompasses “all civil proceedings . . .

I don’t know if Congress foresaw, when it enacted new Subchapter V of Chapter 11 of the Code[1] in the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (“SBRA”), that debtors in pending cases would seek to convert or redesignate their cases as Subchapter V cases when SBRA became effective on February 19, 2020, but it was foreseeable.

Our February 26 post [1] reported on the first case dealing with the question whether a debtor in a pending Chapter 11 case may redesignate it as a case under Subchapter V, [2] the new subchapter of Chapter 11 adopted by the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (“SBRA”), which became effective on February 19.