In a dramatic reversal of restructuring plan fortunes, HRMC recently successfully challenged two independent mid-market Part 26A Companies Act 2006 restructuring plans: the Nasmyth Group Limited Restructuring Plan (the Nasmyth RP) and the Great Annual Savings Company Ltd Restructuring Plan (the GAS RP). To date, only one other restructuring plan has been refused sanction.

In its recent judgment in Guy Kwok-Hung Lam v Tor Asia Credit Master Fund LP [2023] HKCFA 9, the Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong has provided guidance as to how an exclusive jurisdiction clause in a financing agreement impacts on the ability to bring a bankruptcy or winding up petition in Hong Kong. In light of prior inconsistent judgments on the issue, the CFA decision provides welcome clarity as to the impact of exclusive jurisdiction clause on insolvency proceedings and when it may still be appropriate to commence them.

Background

Congress passed the operative texts without noticeable fanfare. From its enactment to today, section 363(k) has entitled a secured creditor to “credit bid” the full amount of the debt owed by a debtor in any sale of the underlying collateral pursuant to section 363(b). That this statutory bequest elicited little debate made imminent sense, for Congress had thereby codified one of secured creditors’ seemingly time-honored rights.

This Quickguide explains the two most common forms to bring a solvent company's life to an end and explains the processes involved in each, as well as in which circumstance which option may be best suited.

Strike-off or members' voluntary liquidation?

When a company has fulfilled its economic purpose or a group of companies wishes to consolidate its structure, there are two main options available to bring a solvent company to an end:

In my earlier posts I wrote about

Re-volt: battery sovereignty in the electric aircraft space - Implications for manufacturers and investors

and

Too many fish in the pond, too many electric birds not yet in the sky

German real estate group restructuring plan sanctioned in London

Having failed to get its restructuring solution through in its home jurisdiction, beleaguered German real estate group, Adler, turned to London. After substituting a UK plc as issuer of six series of notes in order to propose an English restructuring plan, and in the face of fierce opposition from an ad hoc committee of 2029 noteholders (AHG), the group successfully forced the plan through just in time.

Introducción

Este mes destacamos especialmente dos resoluciones judiciales recaídas en relación a dos planes de restructuración: (i) una es la sentencia de la audiencia provincial de la Coruña que resuelve sobre la impugnación del plan de XELDIST cuya homologación fue tan discutida por su peculiar formación de clases (4 de 8 de ellas eran unipersonales) (ii) otra la homologación del plan de SINGLE HOME que sale adelante con el voto favorable tan solo de la clase de los especialmente relacionados.

On April 24, 2023, the First Circuit’s opinion in Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Coughlin came up for oral argument before the Supreme Court. At issue in this appeal is whether this provision’s “abrogat[ion]” of sovereign immunity “as to a governmental unit,” defined to include any “other … domestic government” in section 101(27), embodies a congressional intention to revoke the sovereign immunity of a Native American tribe with sufficient and obvious clarity to be construed as such a revocation.

On April 19, 2023, the Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in MOAC Mall Holdings LLC, ruled Bankruptcy Code section 363(m) to be non-jurisdictional, i.e. just a “mere restriction on the effects of a valid exercise” of judicial power “when a party successfully appeals a covered authorization.” Before MOAC, the Third, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Circuits held section 363(m) to be non-jurisdictional, but the Fifth and Second Circuits had diverged.

Reasoning

In In re Schubert, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of an adversary proceeding because the appellants had failed the “person-aggrieved” test for bankruptcy appellate standing. Had they challenged this standard’s existence, two of the three judges likely would have “abrogate[d]” it; the third would have salvaged it. This decision’s dicta represents perhaps the first outright rejection of bankruptcy’s appellate standing touchstone based on the Supreme Court’s analysis in Lexmark International Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S.