Mr Justice Snowden’s recent judgment sanctioning the Virgin Active restructuring plans is significant for several reasons. Not only is it the first judgment to consider the cram down power of the 2006 Companies Act, but it is only the third instance that the cross-class cram down mechanism has been used. It is also the first time it has been used to cram down classes of dissenting landlords.

Introduction

A fundamental tenet of bankruptcy law is that a debtor will have the ability to get a fresh start once it emerges. A company’s ability to discharge liabilities is among the primary drivers for seeking protection under chapter 11 and, thus, it is of no surprise that ensuring necessary steps are taken for a successful discharge is of utmost importance. Absent a successful discharge of prepetition claims, the reorganized debtor may be saddled with additional liabilities, reducing value for plan stakeholders. The recent Third Circuit unreported decision – Sweeney v.

On 12 May 2021, Mr Justice Snowden sanctioned Virgin Active’s three inter-conditional restructuring plans under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006. The case has been followed with significant interest in the restructuring community because the restructuring plans included the most extensive cross-class cram down proposal since the introduction of the restructuring plan process last year (DeepOcean and Smile Telecoms are the only other restructuring plans to utilise the cram-down mechanism).

The government has introduced the Debt Respite Scheme (Breathing Space), which came into effect on 4 May 2021, which allows individuals who are struggling with debt to apply for a “breathing space” in which to sort out their finances.  This scheme, which was introduced in response to the unprecedented impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, includes residential tenants who are in arrears of rent.

What is a breathing space?

There are two types of breathing space:-

Hong Kong and the Mainland have agreed a new co-operation mechanism for cross-border insolvency. Under the agreement, liquidators from Hong Kong may apply to Mainland courts for recognition of insolvency proceedings in Hong Kong, whilst bankruptcy administrators from the Mainland can apply to the Hong Kong High Court for recognition of bankruptcy proceedings in the Mainland.

Hong Kong and the Mainland have agreed a new co-operation mechanism for cross-border insolvency.

Executive Summary

On March 15, 2021, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (the “Third Circuit”) held that a stalking horse bidder may assert an administrative expense claim pursuant to section 503(b)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code for costs incurred in attempting to close on an unsuccessful transaction, even when the stalking horse bidder is not entitled to a breakup or termination fee.

Introduction

Bankruptcy courts often dismiss appeals of chapter 11 plans when granting the relief requested in the appeal would undermine the finality and reliability of the corresponding plans, a doctrine known as Equitable Mootness. Over the past several years, certain circuits criticized the doctrine for its lack of statutory basis and effect of avoiding review on the merits.¹

On Wednesday 24 March, the government confirmed that it will be extending the current temporary restrictions on statutory demands and winding-up petitions and the temporary suspension of directors’ liability for wrongful trading put in place under the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020, until 30 June 2021.

The extensions, set out in the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Extension of the Relevant Period) Regulations 2021, laid before parliament on 24 March, will come into effect on 26 March 2021.