In our earlier blog, we considered the application to strike out the challenge against the Caffè Nero company voluntary arrangement (“CVA”) (Nero Holdings Ltd v Young) and the rejection of Caffè Nero’s strike-out action by the Court.
Further to our blog last week regarding the restrictions on presentation of winding-up petitions being (partially) lifted, the legislation replacing the existing restrictions on presenting winding-up petitions has now been passed and is due to come into force on 29 September 2021.
This is the first article in 'Back to Basics', a series of articles looking at insolvency processes in Scotland. In this article I examine the court process for winding up a company.
A winding up petition is a form of legal action that can be used when a company is unable to pay its debts as they fall due. Sections 122 to 124 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (‘the Act’) deal with how to wind up a company in Scotland.
When is a company deemed unable to pay debts?
Opening the door for the SME market, Sir Alistair Norris has sanctioned the first ever restructuring plan for a “mid-market” company. The plan sanctioned in Amicus Finance PLC (in administration) is also the first restructuring plan proposed by insolvency practitioners and the first to cram down a secured creditor.
The sanction judgment is short, but the adjourned convening hearing that was dealt with by Mr Justice Snowden (the first hearing was before Mr Justice Trowers) gives some insight into the plan.
The recent case of Re A Company [2021] EWHC 2289 (Ch) outlines how the coronavirus test for winding up petitions will be applied by the Courts.
Two controversial mechanisms are available in many circuits to assist parties in a chapter 11 case to reach a global resolution and obtain plan confirmation: non-consensual third-party releases and preliminary stays against third-party litigation.
In the recent Sheriff Court judgment in the case of The Accountant in Bankruptcy v Peter A Davies, the Sheriff sought to clarify how a family home should be dealt with following the sequestration of an individual.
Background
The debtor was sequestrated in October 2010.
In October 2020, the Accountant in Bankruptcy (‘AiB’) applied to the Sheriff under section 40 of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 (now section 112 of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 2016) to permit the sale of the debtor’s family home.
Is there any downside to a debtor filing a motion to estimate a claim? Or, is an estimation motion simply procedural in nature? As the debtors recently discovered in In re SC SJ Holdings LLC, a motion to estimate a claim before a bankruptcy court may not always lead to a significantly reduced claim, and may impact plan confirmation.
The Facts
CVAs are a useful tool in the restructuring tool kit, and may prove extremely helpful to retailers or hospitality companies as a means of supporting those businesses as they emerge from the pandemic. The flexibility of a CVA and the ability to shape the terms of a proposal to meet the specific needs of a business have seen an increasing number of consumer led businesses use CVAs, and they have become popular as a means to restructure businesses that have a significant lease portfolio.
Section 1930(a)(6) of Title 28 requires the payment of quarterly fees to the United States Trustee (the “UST”) for each quarter that a bankruptcy case is open. The amount of fees is calculated based on the amount of disbursements made by the debtor during each quarter. But, are these fees payable when a trust, established by a confirmed plan, makes distributions rather than a debtor?