UK Restructuring A YEAR IN RETROSPECT 2 Contents Introduction Our people UK team Matter Highlights UK Restructuring Employment UK Restructuring Section Header Section Header Contents 3 Robert Russell UK Head of Restructuring +44 (0)161 235 4147 [email protected] 2023 – Continued instability Casting our minds back to January last year, the economic outlook was fraught with uncertainty.

Executive summary

A recent decision of the High Court sanctioned restructuring schemes for two companies in the Solar 21 renewable energy investment group showing once again effective and efficient restructuring tools available in Ireland for companies in need. Below we discuss the main features of the Judgment and the criteria required to be met in order for the schemes to be legally binding and effective pursuant to Part 9 of the Companies Act 2014 (as amended) (the Act).

What is a Part 9 Scheme of Arrangement?

A free-standing moratorium for financially distressed but ultimately viable companies was introduced in 2020. It is sometimes called a Part A1 moratorium, after the part of the Insolvency Act 1986 which provides for it.

Introduction

Independent schools have not been immune from financial stress in recent years. Prior to the pandemic a combination of increasing staff costs, greater competition and the need for continual investment in technology and premises was already posing challenges for a number of institutions. This was exacerbated by the unique pressures of COVID, which saw income squeezed as a result of enforced school closures and reduced pupil numbers.

Overview

• The UK Supreme Court issued a recent decision in R (on the application of Palmer) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates Court and Another [2023] UKSC 38.
• Crucially, the Court determined that an administrator is not an officer of the company within the meaning of the phrase 'any director, manager, secretary or similar officer of the body corporate', for the purpose of section 194(3).

Contents

R (on the application of Palmer) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates Court and Another [2023] UKSC 38

R (ON THE APPLICATION OF PALMER) V NORTHERN DERBYSHIRE MAGISTRATES COURT AND ANOTHER [2023] UKSC 38

Insolvency practitioners will welcome the Supreme Court’s recent decision that an administrator of a company appointed under the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA) does not fall within the ambit of section 194(3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992) (TULRCA) and therefore cannot be held personally liable under criminal law for the company’s failure to give notice to the Secretary of State in accordance with section 193 of TULRCA.

In a judgment that will be welcomed by insolvency professionals, the Supreme Court has today confirmed that administrators cannot be personally criminally liable for failing to notify the Secretary of State about plans for collective redundancies. This judgment follows an appeal by Robert Palmer against a finding that he was criminally liable for his failure to submit form HR1 in his capacity as the joint administrator of West Coast Capital (USC) Limited (USC).

What is the obligation?

With the passing of the Moveable Transactions (Scotland) Act (MTSA) (likely to pass into law in 2024) the way in which we take security over rights and assets in Scotland will be brought firmly into the 21st century, doing away with the need to rely on statutes from as long ago as 1862 and a smattering of case law which has fostered uncertainty in the market for almost as long.

Last week marked another instalment in the notorious insolvency of Comet Group plc (Comet) when the Court of Appeal unanimously set aside the decision of the High Court at first instance which, at the time, was claimed to be the largest successful preference claim in value, resulting in Darty Holdings SAS (successor to Kesa International Ltd (KIL)) being ordered to pay approximately GBP90 million to the liquidators of Comet.

This judgment reinforces the Court’s power to order a judgment debtor to draw down their pension for the benefit of the creditors as recently seen in Bacci v Green.

Summary

The recent judgment handed down by the High Court in Manolete v White [2023] EWHC 567 (Ch) reinforces the Court’s power to order a judgment debtor to exercise a right to draw down on their pension for the benefit of creditors as recently seen in Bacci v Green.

The Facts