The Insolvency Service has today (9 September 2021) announced a phased end (commencing on 1 October 2021) to the temporary insolvency measures which remain as a result of the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA) and the various extensions to the relevant period (announcement).

The headline measures are as follows:

The reforms, which are the result of the transposition of the EU’s Restructuring Directive, should come into force in October.

Key Points:

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 latest announcements

Suffering with mental health problems and being in financial difficulty are often strongly linked, with one frequently causing or worsening the other. The introduction of The Debt Respite Scheme (Breathing Space Moratorium and Mental Health Crisis Moratorium) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020 (referred to in this article as the ‘debt respite regulations’), which, with very limited exceptions, came into force on 4 May 2021, allows an eligible individual breathing space from any action a creditor may take for a ‘problem debt’.

Not only was 4 May Star Wars Day this year, it was also the day The Debt Respite Scheme (Breathing Space Moratorium and Mental Health Crisis Moratorium) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020 (referred to in this article as the ‘debt respite regulations’) came into force.

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

The High Court dismissed landlords’ challenges to the terms of New Look’s company voluntary arrangement (CVA) last week in a ruling that has sparked lively debate within both the landlord and restructuring sectors.

The landlords challenged the CVA by way of three main limbs:

It is unfortunately a common story for anyone who has been in business for any length of time: the unscrupulous director who, rather than confront creditors in an insolvency process, simply disappears as if by magic by dissolving the company and re-appearing elsewhere moments later, leaving creditors clasping nothing but smoke. This loophole has frustrated creditors for many years as it means their only remaining option is a commercially unattractive application to restore the company to the register in order to petition to place the company into compulsory liquidation.

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.