Oceanfill Ltd v Nuffield Health Wellbeing Ltd and Cannons Group Ltd. [2022] EWHC 2178 (Ch)

A recent decision of the High Court has given helpful clarity on the effects of the UK's restructuring plan procedure on lease agreements and the implications for lease guarantors.

The Virgin Active plan

The Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA on 5 October 2022. This important case addresses the duties of directors to consider the interests of creditors as a company approaches insolvency.

While the judgment will be welcomed by many as providing some useful guidance on a number of issues, there still remain some key areas of uncertainty which, as we consider in further detail below, will present clear challenges for directors seeking to navigate their way through a company’s financial difficulties.

Background

Houst Ltd (“the Company”) is a property management company which specialises in short-term holiday rentals through an online platform. It is an SME (small or medium-sized enterprise) with total liabilities of approximately £10 million at stake. The Company became both cashflow and balance sheet insolvent having experienced financial difficulty during the Covid pandemic and this resulted in creditors having threatened winding-up petitions.

Summary

The Hong Kong Court and the US Bankruptcy Court have made conflicting comments regarding the discharge of New York law-governed debt by a foreign scheme of arrangement, where that scheme is the subject of recognition under Chapter 15 of the US Bankruptcy Code.

The corporate insolvency statistics for Q2 2022 paint a worrying picture for UK businesses. With inflation at a 40-year high, fuelled by soaring gas and electricity bills, food prices and wage increases, the cost of living crisis is taking hold across the economy.

On 22 July 2022, judgment was handed down in relation to the sanction of the first Part 26A restructuring plan to be proposed by a small–medium enterprise (SME) in Re Houst Limited [2022] EWHC 1941 (Ch). The restructuring plan (RP) procedure set out in Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) has been widely considered to be out of the reach of SMEs due to excessive cost. The decision is also an interesting one for other reasons, notably the cram-down of HMRC as a dissenting creditor.

Today’s insolvency statistics contained few surprises, creditors’ voluntary liquidations (CVLs) have continued to outnumber other types of company insolvencies by some margin and have distorted the overall picture, which is that (putting aside CVLs where directors/shareholders elect to pull the plug themselves on a company’s survival) figures for other types of company insolvencies remain below pre-pandemic figures.

For those who missed it the Insolvency Service published an excellent research report at the end of June which focuses on the treatment of landlords in company voluntary arrangements (CVAs). This was against the backdrop of a large number of "landlord" CVAs in recent years – particularly in the retail and casual dining sectors – where landlords have often complained that they have been unfairly treated compared to other compromised creditors. The report concludes that landlords are, broadly speaking, equitably treated compared to other classes of unsecured creditors.

The Insolvency Service has published a report on the research commissioned by it on the use of Company Voluntary Arrangements ("CVAs") by large companies in the retail trade, accommodation and food and beverage sectors.

The Insolvency Service has published an interim report which evaluates three permanent changes to the insolvency regime as introduced by The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA): restructuring plans; the standalone moratorium and the restriction on contractual termination rights (so-called ipso facto clauses). The takeaway messages are as follows: