Judgment was handed down last week on the substantial directors' duties and wrongful trading claims brought against former directors of various BHS companies[1].
Matthew Czyzyk, Natalie Blanc, Natalie Raine and Emily Ma, Ropes & Gray
This is an extract from the 2024 edition of GRR's Europe, Middle East and Africa Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.
Evolution of the super scheme
FRST GROUP RESTRUCTURING PLAN SANCTIONED
EVOLUTION OF THE SUPER SCHEME
In brief
Following the second longest sanction hearing in restructuring plan history, and the only sanction hearing yet to morph into a second convening hearing, the Part 26A restructuring plan proposed by Project Lietzenburger Strae Holdco S..r.L (plan company) has been sanctioned.1 The plan is part of a highly contested, complex, cross-border restructuring of more than EUR1 billion of debt documented under German law.
It involved
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.
Dispute Resolution analysis: An application by the former administrators of a company for an increase in their remuneration has been dismissed, despite the Court concluding that they had standing to bring the application itself.
Frost and another v The Good Box Co Labs Limited and others [2024] EWHC 422 (Ch)
What are the practical implications of this case?
In a seminal judgment of the Court of Appeal of England & Wales in the case of In the Matter of AGPS Bondco plc (Adler), the Court of Appeal overturned the first instance judgment of the High Court of England and Wales sanctioning a restructuring plan between AGPS Bondco plc (Plan Company) and its creditors. In doing so, it restated and clarified the law in England & Wales insofar as it relates to restructuring plans. Post-Adler, the High Court has sanctioned a restructuring plan in the case of In the Matter of Project Lietzenburger Straße Holdco S.A.R.L.
KENYA
Economic overview
On Tuesday 23 April 2024, Macfarlanes hosted a roundtable discussion on the EU Directive on Restructuring and Insolvency of 20 June 2019 (EUR 2019/1023, Directive) and the method of, and tools offered by, its implementation across a number of EU member states and equivalent domestic legislation – namely Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (Part 26A) and restructuring plans (for more on restructuring plans under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006, see our more in-depth article on “
Even if the statutory conditions for cramming down the votes of dissenting creditors has been met, the court retains a discretion to consider other factors
Certain statutory conditions need to be met in order for the court to sanction a plan at least one class of creditors or members has not voted in favour of the plan by the requisite majority (being 75% in value of those present and voting) – referred to as the "cross-class cram down".
Demonstrating that dissenting creditors are no worse off under a contested restructuring plan than in the relevant alternative is an essential requirement for the court to exercise its power to sanction the plan
The power of the court to sanction a restructuring plan where one or more classes of creditors or members has not voted in favour of the plan by the requisite majority (being 75% in value of those present and voting) is referred to as the "cross-class cram down".