This article summarises the findings of the High Court in Re gategroup Guarantee Limited [2021] EWHC 304 (Ch) (Re gategroup Guarantee Limited) and provides a view of its effects on the cross-border application of the Restructuring Plan (defined below) and the use of co-obligor structures in restructurings.
The Restructuring Plan
On 24 February 2021, the UK government laid The Administration (Restrictions on Disposal etc. to Connected Persons) Regulations 2021 before Parliament.
These draft regulations introduce (among other items) new restrictions on “pre-pack” disposals to connected persons and are seemingly a policy response to growing criticism around the inequity of pre-pack sales.
Despite the ongoing global pandemic, opportunities for stressed and distressed investments have not been as prolific as many expected. The window for entry into credits opened and closed more quickly than imagined. Nevertheless there have been several high-profile restructurings using the English scheme of arrangement. Of course, some of these were already in motion prior to the onset of the pandemic. A handful of these have sought to test the recently enacted insolvency regime, whilst others have tested more established legislative principles.
THE CHALLENGE:
After years of selling services at a loss to grow its customer base, Agera Energy—a retail electricity and natural gas provider for commercial, industrial and residential customers in 16 states—realized its business was no longer viable. The company decided to file for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection after evaluating strategic alternatives.
The enacted Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act (the Act) introduces three permanent reforms to the existing insolvency legislation and certain temporary measures designed to address the immediate impact of COVID-19 on UK businesses. Among other things, the Act looks to maximise the potential for struggling companies to be maintained as a going concern. As market participants and the courts get to grips with the new legislation, it is clear that there will be some impact on the special situations landscape and the business of stressed and distressed investment.
A 139ZQ notice issued by the Official Receiver is a powerful tool for trustees in bankruptcy seeking to recover a benefit received by a third party from an alleged void transaction. These include transactions such as an unfair preference, an undervalued transaction, or a transaction to defeat creditors.
Given the adverse consequences for noncompliance, a recipient of a 139ZQ notice should take it seriously and obtain legal advice without delay.
Section 139ZQ notices
Section 561 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) provides that accrued employee entitlements must be paid in priority to the holder of a circulating security interest in a winding up.
Until recently, it was unresolved whether the property subject to a circulating security interest should be determined as at the date the liquidation began, on a continuous basis, or at some other unidentified date.
It is unresolved whether a creditor can rely upon a section 553C set-off under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to reduce an unfair preference claim. Until the controversy is resolved by a binding court decision, liquidators and creditors will continue to adopt opposing positions.
Permanent Reforms
Moratorium: a new stand-alone moratorium to provide businesses with an initial 20-business-day stay from creditor action.
A company in liquidation served a creditor’s statutory demand for debt where there was a genuine dispute about the existence of the alleged debt. The statutory demand was set aside by the Court and the liquidators were ordered to personally pay costs on an indemnity basis.
What happened
In SJG Developments Pty Limited v NT Two Nominees Pty Limited (in liquidation) [2020] QSC 104: