The High Court recently issued its ruling in the matter of Re Avanti Communications Limited (in administration). It is the first major case since the pivotal 2005 House of Lords decision of Re Spectrum Plus to examine the characteristics of fixed and floating charges.
Key points
In the current times of financial stress, a borrower seeking to renegotiate or refinance existing financing arrangements may be asked by its lender to enhance or refresh its security package through the grant of a new floating charge.
The question of whether a floating charge can be avoided due to section 245 of the Insolvency Act 1986 ("IA 1986") can arise in such a context.
Void floating charges under section 245 of the IA 1986
The issue
A "no action" clause will appear in almost all English law-governed bond trust deeds.
A no action clause provides that a bondholder (or anyone entitled to payments on the bonds) cannot, initially, proceed directly against the issuer. Instead, the right to bring a cause of action resides with the trustee and it is only if the trustee, having become bound to take action, fails to do so within a reasonable time (with the failure continuing) that a bondholder can then itself proceed directly against the issuer.
The High Court has, for the first time since the introduction of the legislation in June 2020, refused to sanction a cross-class cram-down restructuring plan under Part 26A of the Companies Act. In In the matter of Hurricane Energy Plc [2021] EWHC 1759 (Ch), the court rejected a plan supported by bondholders because it had not been shown that the opposing shareholders had no better alternative prospects (i.e., the ‘no worse off condition’ had not been met).
Introduction
Towards the end of 2020, while businesses were reeling from the challenges of grappling with a global pandemic, the end of the Brexit transition period and LIBOR transition, the Law Commission published a paper analysing the current law underlying intermediated securities - Intermediated securities: who owns your shares? A Scoping Paper.
Over the summer, we wrote about why health care companies may want to consider buying assets out of bankruptcy, taking advantage of the Bankruptcy Code Section 363 sale process (a “363 Sale”). We are back with our second post, to provide more detail to the process and discuss some pros and cons of 363 Sales.
This two-part blog series discusses why buyers looking to make strategic purchases in the health care industry might want to take advantage of the Bankruptcy Code Section 363 sale process (363 Sale) and the pros and cons of buying assets out of bankruptcy through a 363 Sale.
The High Court decision in Re All Star Leisure (Group) Limited (2019), which confirmed the validity of an administration appointment by a qualified floating charge holder (QFCH) out of court hours by CE-Filing, will be welcomed.
The decision accepted that the rules did not currently provide for such an out of hours appointment to take place but it confirmed it was a defect capable of being cured and, perhaps more importantly, the court also stressed the need for an urgent review of the rules so that there is no doubt such an appointment could be made.
In certain circumstances, if a claim is proven, the defendant will be able to offset monies that are due to it from the claimant - this is known as set off.
Here, we cover the basics of set off, including the different types of set off and key points you need to know.
What is set off?
Where the right of set off arises, it can act as a defence to part or the whole of a claim.
In our update this month we take a look at some recent decisions that will be of interest to those involved in insolvency litigation. These include: