Summary
The Pensions Regulator intends to issue its first financial support direction (FSD) against the Bermudan-based Sea Containers Limited (SCL), which is currently restructuring under the US Chapter 11 bankruptcy process.
The current decline in oil prices, which continues to show no signs of a long-term reversal, is having unexpected and unwanted consequences, many of which may turn into long-lasting troubles for the oil and gas industry, especially for its investors.
In the November/December 2014 edition of the Business Restructuring Review, we discussed a decision handed down by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware addressing the meaning of “unreasonably small capital” in the context of constructively fraudulent transfer avoidance litigation. In Whyte ex rel. SemGroup Litig. Trust v.
The UK Commercial Court has dismissed the Claimant's application for a stay under Article 28 of the Judgments Regulation.
03 April 2014
[2014] EWCA Civ 383
Court of Appeal (Sullivan, McFarlane and Lewison LJJ)
Further guidance from the Court of Appeal on the meaning of insolvency and the relationship between the cash flow and the balance sheet tests. A company that can only pay its debts as they fall due by incurring further debt is still insolvent.
Can a debtor be found to be balance sheet or cash flow insolvent even though its obligations are limited (in terms of creditor recourse) to the available assets? This was the question facing the High Court in Re ARM Asset Backed Securities SA [2013] EWCH 3351.
The background
The insolvency of the borrower is a standard event of default in facility agreements. As well as covering the borrower's cash flow insolvency, these clauses also often cover other, earlier signs of distress. Two recent cases have seen lenders try to exploit these outer reaches of their insolvency event of default clauses. Hayley Çapani and Adam Pierce explain why these cases are significant for parties negotiating new deals, and for lenders considering their enforcement options on existing deals.
Negotiations with creditors for rescheduling
The UK Supreme Court recently considered the scope of the following tests for whether a company is unable to pay its debts (as set out in section 123(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986):
- The company is unable to pay its debts as they fall due (the "cash-flow test") and
- The value of a company's assets is less than the amount of its liabilities, taking into account its contingent and prospective liabilities (the "balance-sheet test").
The Supreme Court confirmed that:
This article was first published in the LexisNexis Corporate Rescue and Insolvency Journal (2017) 2 CRI 45.
Key Issues