The economic landscape continues to remain challenging, or, in some cases, looks to be getting worse, thereby impacting trading conditions across borders. It is likely that in most jurisdictions, trading conditions will worsen before they stabilise and, ultimately, improve.

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.

BTI 2014 LLC (Appellant) v Sequana SA and Others (Respondents)

Summary

The UK Supreme Court has, for the first time, considered the existence, content and engagement of an obligation on directors to take into account the interests of creditors when a company becomes, or is on the cusp of becoming, insolvent (otherwise known as the “creditor duty”).

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.

Key Takeaways

The restructuring plan regime - including, for the first time under English law, cross-class cram down - was introduced in June 2020. Our experience with restructuring plans proposed to-date has been that the English courts have (for the most part) implemented this new tool flexibly, pragmatically and commercially.

The restructuring plan regime - including, for the first time under English law, cross-class cram down - was introduced in June 2020. Our experience with restructuring plans proposed to-date has been that the English courts have (for the most part) implemented this new tool flexibly, pragmatically and commercially.

Having trouble reading this email? View it in your browser August 2022 SHARE THIS In this edition of Restructuring Watch, we reflect on: • The first restructuring plan to cram down HMRC. • Recent government reports on certain UK restructuring processes and learnings from the first six-months of the National Security and Investment Act 2021. • Government consultations on a crypto special administration regime and prospective additions to the cross-border recognition and insolvency framework. • A reminder of the recent important milestone in the Galapagos cross-border insolvency battle.

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”).