On 10 March 2022, the UK High Court held the adjourned sanction hearing regarding Smile Telecoms Holdings Limited’s (“Smile”) second proposed restructuring plan. Despite Smile Telecoms’ first restructuring plan being sanctioned by the UK High Court back in March 2021, the African telecommunications company still faced liquidity shortages. This prompted the company to propose a second restructuring plan under Part 26A of the UK Companies Act 2006 (the “Companies Act”). The second restructuring plan would see the Smile Telecoms’ group senior secured lender, 966 CO S.a. r.l.
A key bankruptcy-related response to the pandemic has ended as the increased debt limits under subchapter V of chapter 11, passed by Congress in the CARES Act, have expired. In an effort to provide bankruptcy relief and access to subchapter V of chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code to a greater number of small businesses, Congress raised the debt limit for subchapter V eligibility from the original $2,725,625 million to $7.5 million via the CARES Act, passed in March of 2020.
“I did not want you to hear this on the news for the first time, but we are filing for bankruptcy next week.” “This is a difficult call to make. We are going out of business and will probably be filing a chapter 7 in the next couple of days.” Needless to say, bankruptcy is problematic for a licensor: the licensee may cease performing, the royalty stream may run dry, and the licensee or a trustee could attempt to sell or assign the license in bankruptcy to an undesirable licensee, or even a competitor.
A recent case out of the Eastern District of California addressed the split in authority on whether an inaccurate credit report alone is enough to establish a concrete injury in fact for purposes of Article III standing.
This week, the Ninth Circuit takes a close look at a sizable antitrust jury award, and explains what constitutes a tax “return” for purposes of bankruptcy law.
OPTRONIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC v. NINGBO SUNNY ELECTRONIC CO. LTD.
The Court held that sufficient evidence supported a jury verdict holding telescope manufacturers liable for antitrust violations.
This update summarises the latest jurisprudence on insolvent schemes of arrangement (schemes) and restructuring plans (RPs), and provides an overview of the key themes that are emerging in this area.
Key Concepts and Notes
This week, the Ninth Circuit explains the ins-and-outs of property abandonment under the Bankruptcy Code, and explores the government’s privilege to withhold the identity of informants in discovery.
Many investors, including PE firms, are waiting with bated breath to see how the UK economy, currently dependent on COVID-19-related government support, will respond once that stimulus is withdrawn. An increase in UK company insolvencies is expected, creating opportunities for savvy investors to acquire businesses at bargain prices, while at the same time appearing to be white knights swooping in to save a beloved high street brand or large regional employer.
On 8 July 2021, the Payment and Electronic Money Institution Insolvency Regulations 2021 (the Regulations) will come into force in the UK and introduce a new special administration regime for insolvent payment institutions (PIs) and electronic money institutions (EMIs). The key purposes of the Regulations are to ensure that, if a PI or EMI becomes insolvent (and/or it is fair or expedient to put the institution into special administration), funds are quickly returned to customers and any shortfalls in the amounts available are minimised.
In dismissing Darty Holdings SAS’ (“Darty”) appeal in a recent decision[1], Miles J. has confirmed that an English court will look at the actual relationship between the parties involved, rather than the wider context, when considering whether those parties are connected. This will be the case even where the wider context consists of a transaction that will, immediately following the relevant transaction, sever that relationship.