2019 has been a busy year for restructuring specialists. Although the UK economy narrowly avoided a recession, a combination of continued domestic and international political uncertainty, decreased consumer confidence and challenging conditions in certain sectors has meant that a number of businesses have gone through restructurings and, in some high-profile cases, insolvency processes during the year.

Chinese firms acquiring foreign assets has been a hot topic for some time. But one often overlooked question is what happens to those overseas assets if the Chinese business fails? Given the scale of Chinese investment overseas and the financial problems currently being experienced by many Mainland businesses, this question is of growing importance. Two recent decisions – one in Hong Kong and one in New York – address this issue and point to the growing demystification and recognition of Chinese insolvency law outside China.

In this week’s update: The court finds that selfdealing by a director and a share buyback were void, the PERG report on compliance with the Walker Guidelines, the BVCA and EY review private equity portfolio company performance, the QCA reports on AIM company corporate governance and a few other items. 

Court confirms self-dealing by director was void

What is the preventive restructuring framework and what are its key features?

Where there is a likelihood of insolvency (but importantly where the debtor is not yet insolvent as defined by national law), Member States must provide debtors with access to a preventive restructuring framework that enables them to restructure, with a view to preventing insolvency and ensuring their viability.

Being involved with a company which is experiencing financial difficulties is clearly a stressful experience for directors. As well as having to deal with the operational consequences of the company’s distress, directors must ensure that they comply with their duties and obligations under the Companies Act 2006 (CA2006) and the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA1986). Directors of listed entities are in a particularly difficult position, as in addition to those duties they must comply with their obligations to the markets.

Directors’ duties

In this week's update: directors did not need to consider the rights of creditors when declaring a dividend as the company was not insolvent, the Law Commission is seeking views on the law of intermediated securities, polling information can be inside information and a couple of other items.

Court considers whether demerger by dividend was valid (part 4)

In this week's update: a distribution was valid despite discrepancies in the accounts justifying the dividend and an examination of vexatious resolutions.

Court considers whether demerger by dividend was valid (part 2)

In this week's update: directors implementing a management buy-out did not owe fiduciary duties to the other shareholders and a distribution was valid despite the relevant accounts not being in the usual format.

Directors did not owe fiduciary duty to shareholders

The High Court has held that the directors of a company did not owe a fiduciary duty to the company’s shareholders when implementing a management buy-out (MBO).

What happened?

On 28 March 2019 the European Parliament adopted a Directive on insolvency, restructuring and second chance (the Directive). This project has had a long tail, following a Commission Recommendation issued in 2014 and, after that had no impact, a draft Directive in November 2016. This draft Directive is now about come to fruition. It has three main aims

1. to ensure that member states have a preventive restructuring framework – which includes a restructuring plan;

The Institutional Limited Partner Association (ILPA) has published recommendations for how “GP-led fund restructurings” should be organised. These transactions occur when a fund sponsor (GP/manager) introduces a secondary purchaser to buy assets out of one of its existing funds, typically into a new fund structure where the same GP is the manager. Such transactions are complex and inevitably throw up conflict issues. Investors regularly complain that GPs are short on transparency and slapdash with timelines when trying to do one of these deals.