There has been much debate in recent years around the use made of certain UK restructuring tools – the company voluntary arrangement and, more recently, the new restructuring plan – to restructure commercial property leases. Commercial tenants argue that compromise is necessary to address high fixed costs that are no longer sustainable, but landlords have often been critical of the approach taken. This debate has become more acute in the context of the pandemic, as many High Street businesses subject to mandatory closure have built up significant rent arrears that need to be addressed.
The financial loss and the uncertainty caused by the pandemic continues to affect business globally, and an increase in corporate insolvency is widely anticipated. Arbitration is an effective dispute resolution mechanism, but a counterparty entering insolvency proceedings can be disruptive. We recently wrote about insolvency being one of the key trends in international arbitration in 2021.
A new bill, which the UK Government introduced to Parliament on 12 May 2021, seeks to extend the existing directors’ disqualification regime to the directors of dissolved companies.
A trio of landmark decisions by Mr Justice Harris have altered and hugely improved the scheme of arrangement practice in Hong Kong. The new scheme practice points are in brief thus:
First, where an offshore incorporated company seeks to restructure its debts by means of a Hong Kong scheme of arrangement, it should not at the same time pursue a parallel offshore scheme just because it is incorporated offshore. Any such parallel scheme must be justified. Pursuing an unnecessary parallel scheme could entail the following consequences:
A trio of landmark decisions by Mr Justice Harris have altered and hugely improved the scheme of arrangement practice in Hong Kong. The new scheme practice points are in brief thus:
First, where an offshore incorporated company seeks to restructure its debts by means of a Hong Kong scheme of arrangement, it should not at the same time pursue a parallel offshore scheme just because it is incorporated offshore. Any such parallel scheme must be justified. Pursuing an unnecessary parallel scheme could entail the following consequences:
Last week was a busy week for the courts: we reported on the landlord-led challenges to the New Look CVA and the Virgin Active restructuring plan. Neither judgment made happy reading for landlords, with all challenges dismissed in New Look and the restructuring plan sanctioned despite their objections in Virgin Active. The story has slightly improved for landlords today with the court revoking the Regis CVA. There are important findings from Regis, but in itself the judgment will not be sufficient to turn the tide.
Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Spanish Government has approved a number of financial support measures to address companies’ liquidity requirements, including the creation of two guarantee schemes (líneas de avales) managed through the Spanish Official Credit Institute (Instituto de Crédito Oficial – ICO) in relation to financings granted to companies and the self-employed:
On 12 May 2021, the High Court sanctioned Virgin Active’s Part 26A restructuring plan which had been heavily contested by certain landlords. This is the third restructuring plan to use cross-class cramdown (first used in the DeepOcean Group and subsequently in Smile Telecoms), and the first to bind dissenting landlord classes to lease compromises.
A Word of Counsel 9 1. In Hung Yip (HK) Engineering Company Ltd v Kinli Civil Engineering Ltd [2021] HKCFI 153, Harris J reminded practitioners of the true principles applicable to an injunction restraining the presentation of a winding-up petition. Prior to this judgement, it would be fair to say that a number of practitioners had proceeded on the assumption that the hurdle for an applicant to cross was effectively the same as that to defeat a creditor's petition. Introduction 2.
Puncturing a popular myth, Mr Justice Harris in Re FDG Electric Vehicles Limited [2020] HKCFI 2931 held that when the Hong Kong court recognises offshore provisional liquidation orders (“PL Order”), there would not be an automatic stay on proceedings in Hong Kong.
Further, any assistance granted to the offshore provisional liquidators must be restricted to assets in Hong Kong.
The decision is sound in principle and sits well with international insolvency standards.
The Myth