On 12 May 2021, in the first opposed cross-class cram down case, the English High Court sanctioned Virgin Active's restructuring plans, the first to bind landlords to lease compromises.

The decision

While the opposing landlords challenged the valuation evidence advanced by the companies, they did not advance evidence of their own. The court accepted the companies' evidence that:

From 30 April 2021, an administrator will be unable to complete a sale of a substantial part of a company's property to a connected person within the first eight weeks of the administration without either:

• The approval of creditors
• An independent written opinion (positive or negative)

This alert considers the impact of the new regulations in practice, which apply to both pre-packs and post-packs that take place within eight weeks of an administrator's appointment.

When is an evaluator's report required?

The High Court dismissed landlords’ challenges to the terms of New Look’s company voluntary arrangement (CVA) last week in a ruling that has sparked lively debate within both the landlord and restructuring sectors.

The landlords challenged the CVA by way of three main limbs:

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently reversed summary judgment entered in favor of Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (“Experian”) in a Fair Credit Reporting Act claim brought by Henry Losch (“Losch”) finding not only that Losch had standing to bring the claims but also that Experian’s investigation of Losch’s credit reporting dispute was not “reasonable as a matter of law.” Losch v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC d.b.a. Mr. Cooper, -- F. 3d. --, 2021 WL 1653016, *1 (11th Cir. April 28, 2021).

On 12 May 2021, the UK Government introduced the snappily titled “Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Bill”.

It is unfortunately a common story for anyone who has been in business for any length of time: the unscrupulous director who, rather than confront creditors in an insolvency process, simply disappears as if by magic by dissolving the company and re-appearing elsewhere moments later, leaving creditors clasping nothing but smoke. This loophole has frustrated creditors for many years as it means their only remaining option is a commercially unattractive application to restore the company to the register in order to petition to place the company into compulsory liquidation.

The Australian government has taken swift action to enact new legislation that significantly changes the insolvency laws relevant to all business as a result of the ongoing developments related to COVID

General Scheme of Companies (Small Company Administrative Rescue Process and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2021 (“SCARP”) just published

The COVID-19 pandemic has led successful resolution applicants to seek withdrawals of, or modifications to, approved resolution plans. This article examines the Supreme Court’s recent judgment on claims of force majeure in the resolution process of Amtek Auto.

In the recent case of TMG Brokers Ltd (In Liquidation) (also known as: Baker v Staines) the High Court held a director of a company to be jointly and severally liable for payments made by his co-director out of the company’s bank account which were made without proper authority and amounted to disguised distributions of capital. The fact that he had placed trust in the other director for the company's financial affairs did not excuse him from performing his duties.

Background