As Russia’s invasion of Ukraine continues, governments around the world are coordinating and responding with increasingly severe sanctions and export controls on Russian entities, institutions, and individuals. Insolvency practitioners first wonder whether sanctioned entities, or entities connected to sanctioned individuals, can enter into an insolvency procedure and, if so, how does the insolvency practitioner accept an appointment and get paid?

There are distinct advantages to investors sitting on the boards of their portfolio companies, not least their ability to look after their investment and work toward maximising their return. The human capital provided by investor directors can be invaluable in driving efficiencies and creating growth opportunities. The interests of investors, investor directors, and the company will generally be aligned in seeking the success of the business.

The National Security Investment Act 2021 (the “Act”) came into effect on 4 January 2022 and introduced a new UK investment screening regime focused on national security risks (the “NSI Regime”). It is similar to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS”) regime. The Act is wide reaching; it provides the UK government with the power to review and intervene in transactions that may pose a UK national security risk due to a transfer of control of sensitive entities or assets.

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.

New requirements brought in during the Covid-19 pandemic have added to the potential procedural pitfalls facing creditors seeking a winding up order in recent months. They have also led to quite a lot of adjourned hearings and delays.

Dispute Resolution analysis: Deputy ICCJ Schaffer has dismissed an application brought by the Respondents to a claim brought by the Joint Liquidators of BHS Group Ltd for wrongful trading. The failure to plead the relevant quantum of the claim was not a deficiency which merited strike-out.

Re BHS Group Ltd [2021] EWHC 3501 (Ch)

What are the practical implications of this case?

These case summaries first appeared in LexisNexis’ Insolvency Case Alerter. They represent some of the more interesting insolvency decisions to have been published recently.

This summary covers:

We are (or were!) emerging from nearly two years of restrictions caused by the Covid-19 pandemic which forced people to stay at home and businesses to close causing shock waves throughout the economy. The government put in place the package of emergency measures and support which we are now all too familiar with. However, the question always lingered, what next? What about when the money runs out?

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 appeal concerned (inter alia) whether an application for an order for sale made under s.335A of the Insolvency Act 1986 (‘IA 1986’) should be made by an application notice issued under the Insolvency Rules 2016 (‘IR 2016) or by a Part 8 Claim Form issued under the Civil Procedure Rules (‘CPR’).

Factual Background