The recent case of Re VE Global UK Ltd (In Administration) [2024] EWHC 749 (Ch) is a useful reminder to practitioners and lenders alike of the importance of correctly identifying documents which create security interests, analysing them to determine whether such security interest is required to be presented for registration at Companies House and ensuring that all registration steps in respect of such interests are completed within the required 21 day time period.
In the recent case of Loveridge v Povey and Ors [2024] EWHC 329 (Ch) a company shareholder sought to challenge the administrators’ decision to rescue a balance sheet solvent company as a going concern by securing additional funding, as opposed to pursuing a sale of the business.
Background
The High Court has handed down an important decision confirming that an unrecognised foreign judgment can be used to form the basis of a bankruptcy petition.
In rejecting the bankrupt’s appeal, the court confirmed that a debt arising pursuant to such a judgment is capable of constituting a “debt” for the purposes of section 267 Insolvency Act 1986 (the Act), despite the fact that the underlying judgment had not been the subject of recognition proceedings in England.
Facts
Junior debt – sometimes referred to as subordinated debt, occasionally talked about as mezzanine debt – is referred to as such because it ranks behind other, more senior, debt owing by the same borrower. Junior creditors can come in many different shapes and sizes and can include shareholder lenders and specialist debt investors or funds.
The High Court of Bombay (“Court”) in a recent judgment[1] has upheld the NCLT’s powers to direct the Directorate of Enforcement (“ED”) to release attached properties of a corporate debtor, once a resolution plan in respect of the corporate debtor had been approved.
McDermott restructuring plan approved amidst parallel settlement negotiations
The English court has given the green light to the restructuring plan (the Plan) proposed by CB&I UK Limited, part of the McDermott Group, marking the first such approval since the Court of Appeal’s pivotal decision in the Adler case (see our previous update).
Thames Water is making waves once again with renewed discussion around a potential special administration for the beleaguered water company. We wrote last year about reports that the government and Ofwat were making contingency plans for Thames Water after its failure to raise shareholder funding to bridge a funding gap with nearly £1.4bn of its borrowings due to mature this year.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the landmark RPS Infrastructure Ltd vs. Mukul Sharma[1]judgement, once again delved into the issue of claims being made beyond the statutorily prescribed timelines in a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”).
The Court of Appeal has handed down judgment in the case of Humphrey v Bennett, providing some useful guidance on the nature and scope of a director’s duty to avoid conflicts of interest. The case was an appeal against summary judgment of the High Court following a derivative claim brought on behalf of a company by minority shareholders. The case will be of particular interest to directors of smaller companies whose management structures very often operate on a more informal footing.