Do landlords do get a good deal in CVAs? It would seem they do (if you don't read the small print…)

A few weeks ago we blogged that we were expecting RSM's research report, which was commissioned by the Insolvency Service, into the impact of CVAs on the landlords. The specific question in the research paper was: "are landlords equitably treated, compared to other creditors in large business CVAs?".

If you have fraudulently obtained Covid-19 financial support, such as a Bounce Back Loan, you must be pretty worried by recent headlines that show company directors being disqualified, fined and jailed.

There is a sense of "judgment fatigue" when it comes to decisions about the validity of an administrator's appointment or the extension of the administrator's time in office. However, the decision of Deputy ICC Judge Curl QC, in the case of Re E Realisations 2020 Limited, is worth paying attention to.

It was the poet John Lydgate who first said that you can please some of the people all of the time; you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time.

What does the "Wagatha Christie" debacle and the restructuring tool known as a CVA have in common? Answer: ask anyone and they will tell you exactly what "team" they support. Either you are "team CVA" and to you a CVA is a very useful restructuring tool, which allows a company to reorganise its affairs in a comprehensive manner. Alternatively you are "team landlord" and a CVA is just a device which is being used tactically to shaft property stakeholders.

It would appear that the trend we reported in the rising numbers of Scottish corporate insolvencies is showing no let up.

It has taken over 20 months, but we now have a reported decision from the High Court in England on the operation of the new moratorium provisions introduced by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020. Sir Alastair Norris, sitting as a High Court judge, has rejected a creditor's attempt to bring a moratorium to an end following a monitors' decision not to terminate the moratorium.

The changes to the director disqualification regime brought by the Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Act 2021 (the "Act") come into effect on 15 February 2022. We discuss the extension of disqualification proceedings and the impact on directors here.

The Changes

On 12 January 2022, the English High Court granted Smile Telecoms Holdings Limited’s (“Smile” or the “Company”) application to convene a single meeting of plan creditors (the super senior creditors) to vote on the Company’s proposed restructuring plan (the “Restructuring Plan”). It is the first plan to use section 901C(4) of the Companies Act 2006 (“CA 2006”) to exclude other classes of creditors and shareholders from voting on the Restructuring Plan on the basis that they have no genuine economic interest in the Company. 

Background 

On the 19th of August 2021, the English High Court sanctioned a Part 26A restructuring plan proposed by the administrators of Amicus Finance plc (in administration) (“Amicus”) for the company’s solvent exit from administration, enabling the company to be rescued as a going concern (the “Restructuring Plan”).