Latham & Watkins operates worldwide as a limited liability partnership organized under the laws of the State of Delaware (USA) with affiliated limited liability partnerships conducting the practice in France, Hong Kong, Italy, Singapore, and the United Kingdom and as an affiliated partnership conducting the practice in Japan. Latham & Watkins operates in South Korea as a Foreign Legal Consultant Office. Latham & Watkins works in cooperation with the Law Office of Salman M. Al-Sudairi in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

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

Key Points:

This was first published in the LexisNexis Insolvency Law Bulletin (Vol. 21, No. 5 & 6).

This article is co-authored by Justin Ward of Litigation Capital Management and Marcel Fernandes of 12 Wentworth Selborne Chambers.

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

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.

(This article was originally published in the Australian Restructuring Insolvency & Turnaround Association Journal, Vol. 33 – March 2021)

A liquidator can be exposed personally in litigation. In this article we discuss the risks to a liquidator associated with litigation by examining some recent cases where liquidators have been ordered to pay costs personally. To mitigate these risks, we provide guidance on litigation strategy for liquidators.

Background

The plaintiff was the primary trading entity within a larger group of companies which operated a development and construction business.

The liquidation of the group was complex, with a significant number of claims identified as requiring investigation. Further, ASIC’s allegations of serious misconduct resulted in a significant amount of the liquidator’s time being allocated to assisting ASIC with its investigation.

Problem

This article was originally published in the Australian Restructuring, Insolvency & Turnaround Association Journal (Volume 32 #01 2020)

The first of March marked the second anniversary of the changes to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) permitting an external administrator to assign rights to sue. The Australian Government proposed the reform in the hope that the ‘sale of rights of action may enable the value in such rights to be realised’[1].

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