After a somewhat leisurely start, case law regarding the new restructuring plan in Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 now seems to be picking up pace.
On 13 January 2020, the High Court sanctioned the restructuring plans proposed by three UK companies in the DeepOcean group, under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006.
After a year in which numerous businesses have relied on various forms of government support to stay afloat, many will be hoping that 2021 offers the chance to emerge from this period and resume some degree of normal trading. Certainly, the coming year will be make-or-break time for those businesses that have been most impacted by the pandemic – and as government assistance is wound back, the demand for working capital funding is likely to be high.
With over a third of hospitality businesses currently at moderate to severe risk of insolvency (according to the most recent ONS survey), many in the sector are urgently considering the best way forward. One strategy, which we have recently seen a number of casual dining businesses like Carluccios and Gourmet Burger Kitchen deploy, is a ‘prepack’ administration. However, although the deals involving household names may grab the headlines, pre-packs are also widely used by small and micro businesses.
On 8 October the Insolvency Service published a report on pre-pack sales in administrations, together with draft regulations imposing a mandatory referral to independent scrutiny in the case of pre-packaged sales to connected parties.
This article, written by Tim Carter and Helen Martin, considers the background to the proposed regulations, their content and their potential impact.
Background
INTRODUCTION
In late February 2014, MtGox Co., Ltd (“MtGox”), once the largest bitcoin exchange in the world, suspended all trading on its exchange after internal investigations revealed a loss of approximately 750,000 of its customers’ bitcoins worth nearly $473 million. That loss caused MtGox to become insolvent.
CASE SNAPSHOT
CASE SNAPSHOT
In a case of first impression, the Fourth Circuit determined that broker commissions shown to be reasonable and customary parts of settling stock sales constitute "settlement payments" and that the payment of margin interest constitutes "margin payments" under section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code such that these types of payments are immune from avoidance and recovery by a bankruptcy trustee.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND