2018 has seen a wave of company voluntary arrangements ("CVAs") hit the market, with high profile companies such as House of Fraser, Carpetright, New Look and Homebase (to name a few) all making use of this restructuring tool. This briefing note explains how a CVA works, provides an overview of current "market" themes, and makes some predictions on the future of CVAs.

EVOLUTION OF THE CVA

2018 has seen a wave of company voluntary arrangements ("CVAs") hit the market, with high profile companies such as House of Fraser, Carpetright, New Look and Homebase (to name a few) all making use of this restructuring tool. This briefing note explains how a CVA works, provides an overview of current "market" themes, and makes some predictions on the future of CVAs

EVOLUTION OF THE CVA

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently issued a 2–1 decision affirming the ruling of the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, which reconsidered its prior approval of a $275 million termination fee in connection with a proposed merger. In re Energy Future Holdings Corp., No. 18-1109, 2018 WL 4354741, at *14 (3d Cir. Sept. 13, 2018).

On June 20, 2018, Judge Kevin J. Carey of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware sustained an objection to a proof of claim filed by a postpetition debt purchaser premised on anti-assignment clauses contained in transferred promissory notes. In re Woodbridge Group of Companies, LLC, et al., No. 17-12560, at *14 (jointly administered) (Bankr. D. Del. Jun. 20, 2018).

Summary

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut recently examined a question at the heart of an existing circuit split regarding the consequences of trademark license rejection in bankruptcy: can a trademark licensee retain the use of a licensed trademark post-rejection? In re SIMA International, Inc., 2018 WL 2293705 (Bankr. D. Conn. May 17, 2018).

On February 27, 2018, the United States Supreme Court resolved a circuit split regarding the proper application of the safe harbor set forth in section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, a provision that prohibits the avoidance of a transfer if the transfer was made in connection with a securities contract and made by or to (or for the benefit of) certain qualified entities, including a financial institution.

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that section 1129(a)(10) of the Bankruptcy Code – a provision which, in effect, prohibits confirmation of a plan unless the plan has been accepted by at least one impaired class of claims – applies on “per plan” rather than a “per debtor” basis, even when the plan at issue covers multiple debtors. In re Transwest Resort Properties, Inc., 2018 WL 615431 (9th Cir. Jan. 25, 2018). The Court is the first circuit court to address the issue.

SAW (SW) 2010 Ltd & Anor v Wilson & Ors [2017] EWCA Cif 1001 (25 July 2017)

The Court of Appeal has held that the validity of a floating charge (and the appointment of joint administrators under that floating charge pursuant to paragraph 14 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986) does not depend on the existence of uncharged assets of the company at the time of its creation, nor upon the power of the company to acquire assets in the future.

BACKGROUND

Randhawa & Anor v Turpin & Anor [2017] EWCA Civ 1201

In a fascinating (and very readable) judgment, the Court of Appeal has held the appointment of joint administrators made under paragraph 22 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 ("IA 1986") to be invalid because, among other things, the appointment was made following an inquourate board meeting. Readers are encouraged to read the judgment, as the following is merely an overview of the facts and conclusions.

BACKGROUND