The saga of the first Ultra Petroleum Corp. chapter 11 cases appears to have finally come to an end. Numerous articles have been written on the tortured history of whether certain creditors of Ultra Petroleum are entitled to payment of their contractually mandated Make-Whole Amount and default rate of interest.

While the timing of competing English and German insolvency applications in Re Galapagos allowed for clear determination of jurisdiction under the UK Insolvency Regulation, there remains potential uncertainty as to how similar competing applications made following 31 December 2020 will be resolved in the post-Brexit environment.

Background

The UK High Court has ruled that the obligations of third-party guarantors are not affected by a part 26A restructuring plan being sanctioned in respect of the underlying obligations. This approach mirrors the way guarantees are dealt with in a part 26 scheme of arrangement.

The case of Oceanfill Ltd. v Nuffield Health Wellbeing Ltd & Cannons Group Limited examined whether a restructuring plan under part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (the “Act”) had the effect of releasing liability arising under a third-party guarantee.

Following a long wait of 18 months, the Supreme Court has today confirmed that the appeal of the decision in BTI –v- Sequana is unanimously dismissed.

The key question that many of us have been waiting for the answer to is: Does the creditor duty set out in s172(3) of the Companies Act 2006 exist and if so, when is it engaged?

The Supreme Court has refused permission for the case of Lock v Stanley to be appealed, meaning that the Court of Appeal’s approach to questions around the assignment by a liquidator of claims in the insolvent estate stands.

Most notably the Court of Appeal confirmed that a liquidator is under no duty to offer defendants the right to acquire the claims against them unless the failure to do so would be perverse.

Thanks are owed to SPB summer associate Gabby Martin for her contributions to this article.

Last month, a Florida federal jury found in favor of a credit reporting agency (“CRA”) in a trial centering on whether the CRA took “reasonable” steps to assure the accuracy of a consumer’s credit report after a consumer dispute. The result is a valuable glimpse into how juries view the burdens of the statutory obligations placed on reporting agencies by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”).

Effective from 1 August 2022, a new Restructuring Act (Sw. lag om företagsrekonstruktion), which implements the EU Directive on restructuring and insolvency (the "Restructuring Directive"), comes into force in Sweden. As further explained below, the aim of the new Restructuring Act is to improve the Swedish restructuring regime by introducing a number of new features previously unknown to Swedish law.

In Re Tantleff, Alan [2022] SGHC 147, the Singapore High Court considered for the first time whether the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (30 May 1997) (the "UNCITRAL Model Law") as enacted under the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 ("IRDA") (the "Singapore Model Law") applies to real estate investment trusts ("REITs").

The perceived costs of proposing a restructuring plan are seen to be the biggest inhibitors to using the process for SMEs. It is still a relatively new tool and insolvency practitioners, lawyers and the courts are still grappling with it, but as we have seen recently in Amigo Loans it can provide creative and innovative restructuring solutions[1].

On 28 January 2022, the government of the Republic of South Africa promulgated the Financial Sector Laws Amendment Act, No. 23 of 2021 (the "FSLAA"). However, not all of its provisions have come into force. To date, sections 2, 3, 12 and 58 of the FSLAA have come into effect. The FSLAA aims to, amongst other things, introduce South Africa‘s first comprehensive deposit insurance scheme that will ensure that depositors are paid their funds when a bank fails.