On 23 January 2024, the Court of Appeal handed down its much anticipated judgment[1] on the appeal of the Adler restructuring plan pursuant to Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (“RP”), which was sanctioned by the High Court on 12 April 2023

The Court of Appeal has unanimously overturned an unlawful preference ruling from the High Court, finding instead that the repayment of inter-company debt did not amount to a preference because, at the time the operative decision to make the repayment occurred, there was no desire to prefer.

In two recent blog posts we discussed the challenge made to the Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) of Mizen Build/Design Ltd (the “Company”) by Peabody Construction Limited (“Peabody”) and the finding of (i) a material irregularity based on failure to disclose information to creditors in the CVA proposal, and (ii) unfair prejudice based on vote swamping.

In a previous blog about the case of Mizen we considered the case from the point of view of “guarantee stripping”, looking at how the CVA dealt with those claims. However, the CVA was challenged on a number of bases, including whether it was unfairly prejudicial as a consequence of “vote swamping”.

In this blog, we look at that aspect of the case.

A company voluntary arrangement (CVA) is a tool which has been widely utilised by companies seeking to restructure and compromise liabilities.

In recent years CVAs have been in the limelight because of attacks by landlords who feel that they have been unfairly prejudiced by the CVA terms. Largely, challenges such as those to the Regis and New Look CVAs have been unsuccessful, but arguments about unfair prejudice based on “vote swamping” were left open for future debate.

The Supreme Court rules in a recent decision over different bankruptcy incidents. The first relates to a work contract to supply materials in which a penalty clause for late work is established, and the ability to execute the works under the guarantee provided in the contract if the contractor may not execute them. Having a delay in delivery of the work and having entrusted to another company the repair works, the owner claimed the payment of the amounts and compensation with the guarantee held.

A claim filed by insolvency practitioners requesting the termination of contract of payment in kind, which was entered into between a party under insolvency proceedings and a third party, centred on the giving of a slicer machine in consideration of debt; whether the credit of the defendant was qualified as subordinated as a result of damages resulting from the company’s inability to operation, and for violating the principle of equality among creditors.

The new amendments carried out in the BankruptcyProceedings Act by virtue of the Royal Decree 4/2014,dated March 7, aims to introduce a viable restructuringof corporate debt, trying to streamline BankruptcyProceedings and prevailing primacy of will.

The Supreme Court of Spain has recognized it its Judgment dated September 5th, 2012, the lack of consent in a work contract on which one of the parties applied for the bankruptcy proceedings 10 days after such contract was entered by both parties.

The parties entered into a contract for execution of work by virtue of which the company that few days later applied for the insolvency proceedings, was committed to carry out the works of a building under construction.

Once the bankruptcy proceeding was started, each party issued a claim within the insolvency proceeding.

The Company Court of Alicante, Nº 1, made, in its judgment dated July 20th, 2012, a useful analysis on the different decisions part of the case law in regards to the recognition of pledgesof future receivables and their classification as privileged credit in cases of bankruptcy proceedings, being a very commonly practiced consideration.