Demonstrating that dissenting creditors are no worse off under a contested restructuring plan than in the relevant alternative is an essential requirement for the court to exercise its power to sanction the plan
The power of the court to sanction a restructuring plan where one or more classes of creditors or members has not voted in favour of the plan by the requisite majority (being 75% in value of those present and voting) is referred to as the "cross-class cram down".
Demonstrating what would most likely happen if a restructuring plan were not sanctioned is an essential element for the exercise of the court's discretion to cram down the votes of dissenting creditors
Restructuring plans under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) may provide an alternative for companies in financial distress to formal insolvency (see our previous Insight).
Restructuring plans can provide companies in the early stages of financial difficulty with a flexible alternative to entering a formal insolvency procedure
Under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006), companies or groups encountering financial difficulties affecting their ability to carry on business can propose a compromise or arrangement (a restructuring plan) which mitigates or eliminates the effects of those financial difficulties.
Understanding whether a company is insolvent, and the date of insolvency, is essential for directors and accountants who advise companies, as well as liquidators and other parties bringing insolvency-based claims. In understanding these issues, the analysis may need to go beyond establishing present-day liquidity – for example, what impact do long term-debts have on a company’s solvency and how are they used to prove insolvency? Which debts are relevant to the cashflow test? Whether a company is ‘able to pay all its debts’ as and when they become ‘due and payable’?
On 8 February 2023, the High Court of Australia (being Australia’s highest court) simultaneously handed down two highly anticipated insolvency law decisions:
In the recent case of LMN v Bitflyer Holdings Inc & Ors [2022] EWHC 2954, the High Court of England and Wales made orders directed at a number of cryptocurrency exchanges requiring them to provide information in relation to misappropriated crypto assets.
Early contingency planning can significantly reduce the shock of service provider/supplier insolvency in service/supply chains
In early November 2022, Made.com entered administration. Little over a year ago Made.com had floated with a valuation of £775 million. In mid-November 2022, Joules entered administration. Joules has 132 stores and around 1,700 employees.
The Court’s decision in Barokes Pty Ltd (in liq) [2022] VSC 642 is important because, for the first time in Australia, a Court has granted a creditor leave to bring a derivative action in the name of a company in liquidation against its liquidators. This case opens another significant gateway for creditors to seek redress for their losses.
This is an important update in the Australian corporate and insolvency law context because, in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and others [2022] UKSC 25, the UK Supreme Court (being the UK’s highest court) confirmed the existence of a duty owed by directors to creditors in certain circumstances (creditor duty). Under the common law and equity (together, general law), there is a gateway to applicability of the creditor duty in Australia.