Categorisation of a charge as fixed or floating will have a significant impact on how assets are dealt with on insolvency and creditor outcomes.

Typical fixed charge assets include land, property, shares, plant and machinery, intellectual property such as copyrights, patents and trademarks and goodwill.

Typical floating charge assets include stock and inventory, trade debtors, cash and currency, movable plant and machinery (such as vehicles), and raw materials and other consumable items used by the business.

Changes are afoot to the statutory regime governing special administrations for regulated water companies (the SAR) following the publication of a suite of new legislation.

Impact of the changes on pension trustees

A thorny question facing a company when considering a Restructuring Plan is how to deal with HMRC particularly following HMRC’s opposition to recent plans.

Creditors now have some assistance in these deliberations thanks toguidance published by HMRC setting out how they will approach discussions with companies considering a Restructuring Plan.

Although a non-insolvency case the recent case of PACCAR Inc & Ors v Competition Appeal Tribunal & Ors (“PACCAR”) has caused waves in the litigation market (including insolvency litigation market) following the Supreme Court finding that litigation funding agreements (LFAs) where funders recover a percentage of the amount awarded to a claimant are damaged based agreements (DBAs) – which- unless the LFA complied with the Damages Based Agreements Regulations 2013 (“DBA Regs”) means that they are unenforceable.

In a decision likely to be welcomed by both debtors and lenders, the High Court has held that a charge granted by Avanti Communications Limited (“Avanti”) was properly characterised as a fixed charge (rather than a floating charge) notwithstanding that the chargor retained an element of control over the charged assets. A key plank of the decision was that the relevant assets were not ‘fluctuating assets’ or ‘stock in trade’ that the chargor might be expected to dispose of in the ordinary course of its business.

The recent decision in Re Astora Women’s Health LLC illustrates the importance of cross-border recognition of insolvency processes, highlighting the benefits of a joined-up global approach which recognises that modern business do not stop for international borders.

With Astora hot off the presses and the twenty-fifth anniversary of the UNCITRAL Model Law on the horizon the team at SPB have taken stock of the cross-border recognition framework from the perspective of the UK and the US.

Astora

On October 17, 2022, Justice Andrea Masley of the NY Supreme Court issued a decision and order denying all but one of the motion to dismiss claims filed by Boardriders, Oaktree Capital (an equity holder, term lender, and “Sponsor” under the credit agreement), and an ad hoc group of lenders (the “Participating Lenders”) that participated in an “uptiering” transaction that included new money investments and roll-ups of existing term loan debt into new priming debt that would sit at the top of the company’s capital structure.

On October 14, 2022, the Fifth Circuit issued its decision in Ultra Petroleum, granting favorable outcomes to “unimpaired” creditors that challenged the company’s plan of reorganization and argued for payment (i) of a ~$200 million make-whole and (ii) post-petition interest at the contractual rate, not the Federal Judgment Rate. At issue on appeal was the Chapter 11 plan proposed by the “massively solvent” debtors—Ultra Petroleum Corp. (HoldCo) and its affiliates, including subsidiary Ultra Resources, Inc.

The UK High Court has ruled that the obligations of third-party guarantors are not affected by a part 26A restructuring plan being sanctioned in respect of the underlying obligations. This approach mirrors the way guarantees are dealt with in a part 26 scheme of arrangement.

The case of Oceanfill Ltd. v Nuffield Health Wellbeing Ltd & Cannons Group Limited examined whether a restructuring plan under part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (the “Act”) had the effect of releasing liability arising under a third-party guarantee.

The Supreme Court has refused permission for the case of Lock v Stanley to be appealed, meaning that the Court of Appeal’s approach to questions around the assignment by a liquidator of claims in the insolvent estate stands.

Most notably the Court of Appeal confirmed that a liquidator is under no duty to offer defendants the right to acquire the claims against them unless the failure to do so would be perverse.