Another interesting case on schemes around the issue of insolvency. A judgment handed down yesterday by Snowden J in MAB Leasing Limited (a Malaysia Airlines leasing company) "parked" the issue of whether a Part 26 scheme (note, not a Part 26A plan) was an insolvency related event under the Cape Town Convention and Aircraft Protocol, as there was unanimous creditor consent. At the earlier convening hearing, Zacaroli J, without needing to decide the issue, stated that the company counsel's skeleton provided a "powerful case for concluding that the [Cape Town Convention] did not apply".

Very interesting judgment yesterday from Zacaroli J in "gategroup Guarantee Limited" (with a small g) that Part 26A plans are insolvency proceedings and therefore fall outside European civil and commercial jurisdictional rules. Pre-Brexit case law tells us that Part 26 schemes are probably not insolvency proceedings and are therefore capable of falling within those rules. Zacaroli J found that the "financial difficulties" threshold conditions to Part 26A plans (which do not exist for Part 26 schemes) made a significant difference.

”The Supreme Court has today handed down its judgment in R (on the application of KBR, Inc) (Appellant) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office (Respondent) [2021] UKSC 2, an important decision relating to the Serious Fraud Office’s powers to issue notices on foreign companies under section 2(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1987. In this article, David Savage, Head of Financial Crime looks at the case, and what the ruling means for the SFO’s investigative powers.

Summary

The Court of Appeal has handed down judgment on two appeals to decide whether the appellants had standing to challenge the conduct of a trustee in bankruptcy (“the Bankruptcy Appeal”) and joint liquidators (“the Liquidation Appeal”) respectively (Brake and others v Lowes and others [2020] EWCA Civ 1491). In this article, Tim Symes, a partner in our Insolvency and Commercial Litigation teams, examines the Court of Appeal’s decision.

The oil and gas industry in the United States is highly dependent upon an intricate set of agreements that allow oil and gas to be gathered from privately owned land. Historically, the dedication language in oil and gas gathering agreements—through which the rights to the oil or gas in specified land are dedicated—was viewed as being a covenant that ran with the land. That view was put to the test during the wave of oil and gas exploration company bankruptcies that began in 2014.

Secured lenders across the UK are unhappy with the government’s decision to push through a new law which could partly or fully wipe out their security in favour of HMRC debts in a liquidation or administration. In this article,  Tim Symes, a partner in our Insolvency and Commercial Litigation teams, considers the return of HMRC’s Crown preference.

The past year has seen some important judgments and hearings (with judgment awaited at the time of writing) on several subjects, some of which may shape the future of UK litigation for years to come. Litigants and litigators have also spent a good part of the year getting used to a new way of conducting litigation—remotely and fully electronically. Starting with contract law, while there has been little by way of Supreme Court guidance on the subject, the lower courts continue to issue interesting judgments.

The government has published draft regulations designed to tighten up how administration sales to connected parties will work. The hope is that this will increase creditor confidence and improve transparency in the process.

So, what are pre-pack administrations, what is wrong with them, and what is the government going to do about it?

What are pre-pack administrations?

A pre-pack administration is simply a ‘teed up’ sale of a company’s business and assets before it enters administration, which is completed immediately after administration.

On August 26, 2020, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the Bankruptcy Code does not require subordination agreements to be strictly enforced in order for a court to confirm a cramdown plan, so long as the plan does not discriminate unfairly.

New regulations deriving from the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 have extended the effective prohibition on statutory demands and winding up petitions until 31 December 2020. Tim Symes, a partner in our Insolvency and Commercial Litigation teams, looks at the implications of this for debtors and creditors.