The Supreme Court has been given its first opportunity to “address the existence, scope and engagement of an alleged duty of company directors to consider, or to act in accordance with, the interests of the company’s creditors when the company becomes insolvent, or when it approaches, or is at real risk of, insolvency”. The corporate restructuring and insolvency community has been waiting for this “momentous” judgment with anticipation for the last 17 months.

The facts of the case:

Nature abhors a vacuum. Equipment finance abhors bankruptcy. Whether in securitized or large, single-asset financings, financiers structure transactions to be “bankruptcy remote.” This article will discuss a December 2021 bankruptcy court bench ruling that found certain protective provisions to be unenforceable and describe how those provisions might have been devised to survive the court’s scrutiny.

Summary

On 21 March 2022, the High Court in Counsel General for Wales and others v Allen and others [2022] EWHC 647 (Ch) (Re Baglan Operations Ltd) modified the decision of the Official Receiver to allow the insolvent Baglan Operations Limited (in liquidation) (the 'Company') to continue trading for a period of time to prevent environmental harm to the locality.

Chapter 15 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code provides a streamlined process for recognition (a form of comity) of a foreign insolvency proceeding. However, courts are divided as to whether a foreign debtor must satisfy the general definition of “debtor” as that term is used in section 109(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, which requires a debtor seeking bankruptcy relief to reside or have a domicile, a place of business, or property in the United States.

In 2005, the United States adopted the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, promulgated by the United Nations Commission on Internal Trade, under chapter 15 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. In so adopting, Congress intended chapter 15 “to be the exclusive door to ancillary assistance to foreign proceedings.” H.R.Rep. No. 109–31, at 110–11 (2005). Notwithstanding the express congressional intent, not all courts have required chapter 15 relief as a prerequisite to seeking relief in a pending civil litigation against a debtor.

We examine what impact the Court of Justice of the European Union decisions in Hampshire v PPF and PSV v Bauer will have on PPF compensation post-Brexit

Background

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA) came into force on 26 June 2020.

Schedule 10 of CIGA restricted the presentation of debt-related winding-up petitions where a company cannot pay its bills (including rent) due to COVID-19 in Great Britain.

These restrictions were initially due to end on 30 September 2020, but have since been extended until 30 September 2021.

The Current Position

While long-term care facilities have generally been kept afloat over the last year through various stimulus packages and lenders willing to work through defaults given the pandemic, some may face financial trouble in the near future due to litigation arising from deaths related to COVID-19.

When a business is distressed and is due to run out of cash, advisors are often called upon to carry out an accelerated M&A process. Whilst there may be scope for the process to be run on a solvent (share sale) basis, it may need to be implemented on an assets basis, often via a formal insolvency process. Because of the undeniable threat of insolvency, directors of distressed businesses should obtain specialist legal advice on their duties at the earliest possible stage.

Board considerations

Imagine that IPs have been appointed as administrators of an aerospace engineering company that operates around the world. The company was financially stressed before the COVID-19 pandemic and then sales dried up. With no reasonable prospect in sight, the directors filed for administration and questions have since been raised about how the directors conducted the company’s affairs shortly before it entered administration.