On the 19th of August 2021, the English High Court sanctioned a Part 26A restructuring plan proposed by the administrators of Amicus Finance plc (in administration) (“Amicus”) for the company’s solvent exit from administration, enabling the company to be rescued as a going concern (the “Restructuring Plan”).

Key Takeaways

Summary

Highlights

On 29 September 2021, the English High Court rejected a challenge in respect of Caff Nero's company voluntary arrangement ("CVA"), brought by a landlord on the grounds of material irregularity and unfair prejudice. The single disgruntled landlord, with the backing of the EG Group ("EG") (who were interested in acquiring Caff Nero), argued that the directors of the company and the CVA nominees breached their respective duties in refusing to adjourn or postpone the electronic voting process to vote on the CVA, after EG had submitted an eleventh-hour offer for Caff Nero.

This is the first article in 'Back to Basics', a series of articles looking at insolvency processes in Scotland. In this article I examine the court process for winding up a company.

A winding up petition is a form of legal action that can be used when a company is unable to pay its debts as they fall due. Sections 122 to 124 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (‘the Act’) deal with how to wind up a company in Scotland.

When is a company deemed unable to pay debts?

In the recent Sheriff Court judgment in the case of The Accountant in Bankruptcy v Peter A Davies, the Sheriff sought to clarify how a family home should be dealt with following the sequestration of an individual.

Background

The debtor was sequestrated in October 2010.

In October 2020, the Accountant in Bankruptcy (‘AiB’) applied to the Sheriff under section 40 of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 (now section 112 of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 2016) to permit the sale of the debtor’s family home.

Should a claim for appraisal rights brought by a former shareholder of a Chapter 11 debtor be subordinated under Section 510(b) of the Bankruptcy Code? According to the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, the answer is yes. See In re: RTI Holding Co., LLC, No. 20-12456, 2021 WL 3409802 (Bankr. D. Del. Aug. 4, 2021).

Background

Trillions of dollars of securities are issued on the strength of bankruptcy remoteness and special purpose entities (“SPVs”) intended to be bankruptcy remote. These transactions generally involve hundreds of millions of dollars and investors’ expectations that the SPVs will not be dragged into a potential bankruptcy filing of their non-SPV affiliates.

In a recent opinion, the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland dealt with a conflict between the strong presumption in favor of enforcing arbitration agreements and the Bankruptcy Code’s emphasis on centralization of claims. Based on an analysis of the two statutory schemes and their underlying policies and concerns, the Court decided to lift the automatic stay to allow the prepetition arbitration proceeding to go forward with respect to non-core claims.

Background