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.

Background

Several recent insolvencies of popular crypto fin-techs have shaken the crypto markets, eroding investors’ trust in digital assets in general and their future reliability.

The European Union's (EU) response is to implement new and clarify existing safeguards for investors to protect their property in the event of an insolvency. In this context, the Markets in Crypto Assets Regulation (MiCAR) is to be implemented throughout the EU.

Legislative changes

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.

Germany is experiencing a severe energy crisis due to the Ukraine conflict and its effect on the supply of natural gas. Energy intensive companies have seen a dramatic increase in energy costs, irrecoverable from consumers, causing grave financial distress in various German industries. As a result, the German government plans to modify the German Insolvency Code (InsO) on a temporary basis. 

Background 

In 2021, the German legislator changed the rules of conduct by inserting a further section into the German Insolvency Code (InsO).

Background

Where the law to mitigate the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic in civil, insolvency and criminal proceedings (COVInsAG) is concerned, the German Parliament has introduced rules regarding the suspension of a managing director’s obligation to file for insolvency. It has also issued important statements regarding the liability of managing directors and the legal position of new loans, especially shareholder loans.

In the event that the obligation to file for insolvency is suspended: