Fulltext Search

受疫情影响,英国越来越多的企业出现运营困难。虽然英国政府出台了多种补救措施,但仍会有很多企业将不可避免地面临破产。对因各种原因可能受到英国公司破产影响的中国公司或个人,本文将从英国破产法角度简要介绍英国公司破产程序、这些程序对于公司和普通债权人的保护,以及担任破产公司董事需要关注的问题。

一. 公司什么时候算破产?

英国的破产法规定主要来源于《1986年破产法》(Insolvency Act 1986)和《1986年破产规则》(Insolvency Rules 1986)。虽然《1986年破产法》没有给破产以明确的定义,但采用了"无力偿还债务"的概念。因此,在英国公司破产一般包含两种情况:一是公司没办法支付债务(现金流量破产 – Cash-flow insolvency),二是公司负债大于资产(资产负债表破产- Balance-sheet insolvency)。

现金流量破产一般表现为公司没办法支付其现有的债务。值得注意的是,即使公司可以支付现有债务,但如果没办法支付其在不远的未来产生的债务也将被视为破产。

On Wednesday 20 May, the Government published the highly anticipated Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the “CIGB”). It legislates for the landmark changes to the UK’s corporate insolvency regime and the temporary suspension of the statutory provisions on wrongful trading announced by the Business Secretary on 28 March 2020 (see Weil’s European Restructuring Watch update of 30 March 2020).

Today, the Government published the highly anticipated Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the “CIGB”).  It legislates for the landmark changes to the UK’s corporate insolvency regime and the temporary suspension of the statutory provisions on wrongful trading announced by the Business Secretary on 28 March 2020 (see Weil’s European Restructuring Watch update of 30 March 2020).

On Wednesday 29 April the Outer House of the Court of Session in Edinburgh issued an opinion sanctioning two schemes of arrangement proposed by Premier Oil Plc and Premier Oil UK Limited (together, Premier Oil) (the Schemes). The Court addressed multiple grounds of challenge and did so without hearing live evidence, despite disputes of fact between the parties.

In the majority of surveyed deals (55%), Sponsor-backed IPO companies availed themselves of at least some “controlled company” exemptions available under applicable listing requirements, which, among other things, exempt such companies from certain board and committee director independence requirements (other than with respect to the audit committee).

In these difficult economic times, companies seeking additional liquidity may turn to alternative sources of financing. Companies with assets that can be monetized (e.g., accounts receivable, intellectual property, real estate, equipment, etc.) may discover a number of options available to them. In particular, accounts receivable financing may be an attractive way for certain companies to obtain working capital relatively quickly.

On 28 March 2020, the Business Secretary, Alok Sharma, announced new insolvency measures to support companies under pressure as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak. In summary, the government is due to: (i) implement the landmark changes to the corporate insolvency regime that were announced in August 2018 (as discussed in Weil’s European Restructuring Watch update on 7 September 2018); and (ii) temporarily and retrospectively suspend wrongful trading provisions for three months.

Proposed Changes to the Corporate Insolvency Regime

Many businesses are—or soon will be—unable to meet their obligations. Not all businesses in distress are unsuccessful; sometimes, as in the economic circumstances arising from the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) and the governmental directives tailored to address the related public health issues, even successful businesses must confront closures and steep declines in demand that could not have been anticipated, and may find it necessary or desirable to restructure their existing debt obligations.

Background

On 6 March 2020, the restructuring of Doncasters Group's 1.22 billion funded debt was completed. Following a successful non-core disposals program, the Doncasters Group (a leading worldwide supplier of high quality engineered components for the aerospace, industrial gas turbine and specialist automotive industries) operates from 12 principal manufacturing facilities based across the United Kingdom, the United States, Germany, Mexico and China.

In a recent decision, In re Philadelphia Entertainment and Development Partners, L.P., No. 14-000255-mdc (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Dec. 31, 2019), the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that state sovereign immunity does not prevent bankruptcy courts from hearing fraudulent transfer claims against states.