Executive Summary

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

This article deals with the effect on claims, both pre-litigation and post, which are driven by Credit Hire Organisations (CHOs) who are insolvent or begin an insolvency process. We have focused on practical considerations to identify such claims as well as what you will need to bear in mind when handling credit hire claims where the CHO is insolvent.

Background

There are three main strands: -

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.

Landlords have become used to the concept of the retail CVA over the past few years, but the new post COVID-19 breed of CVAs has been pushing the boundaries as never before. Further, a new restructuring option – described by some as a “CVA on steroids” – is now available to tenants courtesy of the recently enacted Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act: the s26A Restructuring Plan. Restructuring Plans enable companies, with the sanction of the Court, to impose new terms on creditors even in circumstances where not all classes of creditor have approved the plan.

The economic uncertainty for companies caused by the Covid-19 pandemic has placed a heavy burden on directors. That burden of responsibility is set to become even heavier as the temporary measures introduced in 2020 to support companies during the pandemic come to an end. Small and medium sized enterprises (“SMEs”) and those businesses operating in the travel, hospitality, leisure and manufacturing industries have been impacted in particular.

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