This briefing first appeared in the June 2020 edition of South Square Digest.

Executive Summary

In February 2020 the British Virgin Islands Commercial Court (the "BVI Court") sanctioned a creditor scheme of arrangement, which was part of a much larger cross boarder restructuring. This scheme of arrangement, which as a creditor scheme was itself rare for the BVI, was preceded by the BVI's first ever "soft touch" provisional liquidation (in linked proceedings), which commenced in December 2018.

The Cayman Islands Court of Appeal has provided much needed clarification of the test for validating certain transactions by companies that are subject to a winding up petition, pursuant to section 99 of the Companies Law (2020 Revision) (the "Companies Law").

The Legal Issue of Principle

On 15 January 2020 the States of Guernsey is due to pass the Companies (Guernsey) Law, 2008 (Insolvency) (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020, making Guernsey an even more desirable forum for insolvency proceedings. The new legislation is set to modernise Guernsey insolvency law, bringing the jurisdiction into line with not only the UK but other offshore jurisdictions such as the British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands.

You can read the infographic version of our guide here.

Scheme of Arrangement (Section 86)

A Court approved compromise entered into between a company and its creditors or members or any classes of them. "Arrangement" is construed extremely broadly making a scheme a very flexible restructuring tool.

1. Purpose

This client briefing has been prepared in order to assist directors of companies which have listed debt securities on The International Stock Exchange (TISE or theExchange) pursuant to the listing rules (the Listing Rules) of The International Stock Exchange Authority Limited (the Authority). The Listing Rules are available on TISE's website.

With Hertz emerging from a bankruptcy with a positive result for shareholders, we are reminded of the interplay between the equity markets and the bankruptcy alternative.

Some firms facing financial challenges during the pandemic were able to avoid a bankruptcy filing altogether because of their ability to raise the necessary funds through an equity offering. Hertz provides an example of a situation where the bankruptcy filing instead of wiping out the equity enhanced value.

A recent decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York highlights directors’ fiduciary duty to evaluate all aspects of multi-stage transactions, including those portions to be effectuated post-closing by successor directors.

This past May, in a highly-anticipated decision, the Supreme Court held in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC that a debtor’s rejection of an executory contract under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code has the same effect as a breach of contract outside of bankruptcy.

It is not unusual for a creditor of a debtor to cry foul that a non-debtor affiliate has substantial assets, but has not joined the bankruptcy. In some cases, the creditor may assert that even though its claim, on its face, is solely against the debtor, the debtor and the non-debtor conducted business as a single unit, or that the debtor indicated that the assets of the non-debtor were available to satisfy claims. In these circumstances, the creditor would like nothing more than to drag that asset-rich non-debtor into the bankruptcy to satisfy its claims. Is that possible?

Exculpation provisions in operating agreements must be carefully crafted in order to protect members, managers, directors and officers for breaches of fiduciary duties. In In re Simplexity, LLC, the Chapter 7 trustee sued the former officers and directors (who were also members and/or managers) for failing to act to preserve going concern value and exposing the debtors to WARN Act claims. The defendants argued the exculpation language in the operating agreements shielded against breach of fiduciary duty liability.