When will the insolvency-related provisions come into force?

Following Parliamentary approval in March 2015, there has been a level of uncertainty around the implementation timeline for certain company law and insolvency provisions. In particular, many of the changes to the Insolvency Act 1986 will come into force without transitional provisions and so will apply automatically to existing insolvency proceedings.

In a “loan-to-own” investment, an investor acquires secured debt at a discount to leverage the face amount of the debt in an asset purchase or debt-to-equity swap. For example, if an investor can buy US$50 million worth of debt for US$25 million, it can, in a bankruptcy proceeding, bid on the underlying assets that secure the debt at a 50 percent discount, because the investor can credit bid the face value of the debt as the equivalent of cash in a sale of collateral in bankruptcy, thus creating a competitive advantage over cash or strategic bidders.

Until recently, there was little call for restructuring and turnaround specialists in the UK to focus on the oil and gas industry. That has now undoubtedly changed.  In the second half of 2014, Brent crude prices fell from over US$100 a barrel to around US$50, and although prices have since stabilised (currently near the US$60 mark), a low price environment in the medium term seems likely. That is not bad news for all in the oil and gas industry.

1. The reform and its drivers

We are witnessing an unprecedented review of Spanish Law 22/2003 on Insolvency Proceedings (Spanish Insolvency Act or “IA”).  With the recent approval of three Royal Decree-Laws (“RDLs”), namely RDL 4/2014, of 7 March, RDL 11/2014, of 5 September and RDL 1/2015, of 27 February), the Spanish legislator seeks to achieve three main goals:

It is a well understood legal requirement that any time security is granted, it needs to be registered. Failure to register collateral granted as security according to the requirements of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) can result in the property vesting in the company in administration or liquidation. However in certain circumstances the court may make an order extending the time for registration, even after an insolvency event in respect of the grantor.

In Van Wijk (Trustee), in the matter of Power Infrastructure Services Pty Ltd v Power Infrastructure Services Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 1430, the Federal Court considered whether it was appropriate to appoint provisional liquidators to a company on the just and equitable ground in circumstances where a winding up application is on foot. Senior Associate, Sarah Drinkwater and Associate, Tim Logan, discuss the case and its implications.

The application

Kandola v Mirza Solicitors LLP [2015] EWHC 460 (Ch)

A recent decision of HHJ Cooke in the Chancery Division of the High Court in Kandola v Mirza Solicitors LLP [2015] EWHC 460 (Ch) has provided some useful guidance on solicitors' duties to advise as to the risk of insolvency of the vendor when acting for purchasers in property transactions where deposits are held as agents for the vendor. It also provides guidance on solicitors' duties generally when advising on risks in transactions.

The Facts

The UK is to ratify the Cape Town Convention and its Aircraft Protocol (together, Cape Town). This may help UK aircraft operators access cheaper capital markets funding. But that cheaper funding may require the UK, in effect, to adopt Cape Town's "Alternative A" insolvency regime. Section 1110, US Bankruptcy Code (on which Alternative A is based) has worked well in US airline restructurings. But Alternative A may not mesh well with English insolvency law. Will Alternative A hamper restructurings of UK operators of helicopters and other aircraft?

The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 176-V “On Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy” dated 7 March 2014 (hereinafter the “Rehabilitation Law”) was amended as follows:

In October, we issued an Insolvency Newsflash with respect to the decision in Re: Joe & Joe Developments Pty Ltd (subject to a Deed of Company Arrangement) [2014] NSWSC 1444. On 1 December 2014, a further judgement was handed down by the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Re: Joe & Joe Developments Pty Ltd (subject to a Deed of Company Arrangement) [2014] NSWSC 1703), which considered additional matters and included orders for costs.