The decision provides new judicial guidance for determining the boundaries of cross-class cram down tests. 

On 28 June 2021, the High Court declined to sanction a restructuring plan proposed by Hurricane Energy plc (Hurricane), an AIM listed oil drilling company, under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (Act). The plan would have seen shareholders diluted to 5% of Hurricane’s equity, with the remaining 95% issued to bondholders as consideration for a partial debt-for-equity swap. 

The ruling confirmed that Section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 has extensive international reach, and does not require a transaction at an undervalue to leave the debtor with insufficient assets.

Background

This article deals with the effect on claims, both pre-litigation and post, which are driven by Credit Hire Organisations (CHOs) who are insolvent or begin an insolvency process. We have focused on practical considerations to identify such claims as well as what you will need to bear in mind when handling credit hire claims where the CHO is insolvent.

Background

There are three main strands: -

Landlords have become used to the concept of the retail CVA over the past few years, but the new post COVID-19 breed of CVAs has been pushing the boundaries as never before. Further, a new restructuring option – described by some as a “CVA on steroids” – is now available to tenants courtesy of the recently enacted Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act: the s26A Restructuring Plan. Restructuring Plans enable companies, with the sanction of the Court, to impose new terms on creditors even in circumstances where not all classes of creditor have approved the plan.

The decision confirms that company voluntary arrangements remain a flexible tool for restructuring leasehold portfolios.

• No rigid test exists for “basic fairness” that requires a landlord to receive at least market rent, or that contractual rent should be interfered with to the minimum extent necessary.

• If a landlord is entitled to terminate the lease and receive a better outcome than in the alternative, any automatic unfairness from changes to the terms of the lease is negated.

• Whether a CVA is unfairly prejudicial depends on all the circumstances of the case.

The economic uncertainty for companies caused by the Covid-19 pandemic has placed a heavy burden on directors. That burden of responsibility is set to become even heavier as the temporary measures introduced in 2020 to support companies during the pandemic come to an end. Small and medium sized enterprises (“SMEs”) and those businesses operating in the travel, hospitality, leisure and manufacturing industries have been impacted in particular.

Landmark decision holds that the SFO does not have the power to procure documents from foreign companies outside the jurisdiction.

Der Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) hat mit Urteil vom 18. November 2020 (IV ZR 217/19) entschieden, dass Ansprüche gegen GmbH-Geschäftsführer auf Ersatz von Zahlungen, die nach Insolvenzreife vorgenommen wurden, vom Versicherungsschutz der D&O-Versicherung umfasst sind. Mehrere Oberlandesgerichte hatten dies zuletzt noch anders beurteilt. In der Praxis hatte dies zu einer erheblichen Unsicherheit geführt, nicht zuletzt mit Blick auf die infolge der COVID-19-Pandemie vorübergehend geänderten Insolvenzantragspflichten.

Hintergrund der Entscheidung

Looking back at the last few months, the COVID-19 pandemic has hit many companies hard and amplified disruptive trends in various sectors. In addition to other measures to address COVID-19 impact on businesses, Germany has made significant progress toward international best practices for restructuring: StaRUG — known as the German scheme — came into effect on 1 January 2021, as one of the most modern restructuring laws in the world. But how will StaRUG help German companies survive the crisis and what if insolvency is unavoidable?

Through implementing the EU Restructuring Directive, German restructuring and insolvency law will be modernized, more effective, and enriched by new instruments.