Introduced by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020, the restructuring plans regime set out in Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (Plans) has quickly proven a popular route for corporate financial rescue. This is in large part due to the fact that it allows for a plan to be imposed upon dissenting creditor classes in certain circumstances. This is known as "cross-class cramdown".

Welcome to the first issue of Insolvency Matters, our round-up of recent legal developments affecting insolvency and restructuring.

Case round-up

This article was first published by Insol World Magazine in Q1 of 2024.

Insolvency office-holders in the UK and elsewhere frequently rely upon litigation funders to finance their legal proceedings and, accordingly, developments in the funding market are of keen interest to insolvency professionals.

In its most recent precedential bankruptcy decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a claim for breach of contract – even “contingent” or “unliquidated” – is still a claim which can be discharged in a chapter 11 plan. In re Mallinckrodt PLC, No. 23-1111 (3d Cir. Apr. 25, 2024)

Two recent cases out of the Third Circuit and the Southern District of New York highlight some of the developing formulas US courts are using when engaging with foreign debtors. In a case out of the Third Circuit, Vertivv. Wayne Burt, the court expanded on factors to be considered when deciding whether international comity requires the dismissal of US civil claims that impact foreign insolvency proceedings.

Breathing Spaces and Mental Health Crisis Moratoriums (MHCM) were introduced by the Debt Respite Scheme (Breathing Space Moratorium and Mental Health Crisis Moratorium) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020 (the "2020 Regulations").

Key Takeaways

Key Takeaways

First, the not-so-great news in figures:

When a majority of a company’s board approves a tender offer in good faith, can it still be avoided as an actually fraudulent transfer? Yes, says the Delaware Bankruptcy Court, holding that the fraudulent intent of a corporation’s CEO who was a board member and exercised control over the board can be imputed to the corporation, even if he was the sole actor with fraudulent intent.

Background