A restructuring plan completed earlier this year by Smile Telecoms notches up a number of firsts.

African telecommunications provider Smile Telecoms Holding Limited, incorporated in Mauritius, successfully completed a restructuring plan (the Plan) under Part 26A of the UK Companies Act 2006 at the end of March 2021.

The Plan features a number of novel actions, including:

The decision provides new judicial guidance for determining the boundaries of cross-class cram down tests. 

On 28 June 2021, the High Court declined to sanction a restructuring plan proposed by Hurricane Energy plc (Hurricane), an AIM listed oil drilling company, under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (Act). The plan would have seen shareholders diluted to 5% of Hurricane’s equity, with the remaining 95% issued to bondholders as consideration for a partial debt-for-equity swap. 

Der Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) hat mit Urteil vom 18. November 2020 (IV ZR 217/19) entschieden, dass Ansprüche gegen GmbH-Geschäftsführer auf Ersatz von Zahlungen, die nach Insolvenzreife vorgenommen wurden, vom Versicherungsschutz der D&O-Versicherung umfasst sind. Mehrere Oberlandesgerichte hatten dies zuletzt noch anders beurteilt. In der Praxis hatte dies zu einer erheblichen Unsicherheit geführt, nicht zuletzt mit Blick auf die infolge der COVID-19-Pandemie vorübergehend geänderten Insolvenzantragspflichten.

Hintergrund der Entscheidung

Looking back at the last few months, the COVID-19 pandemic has hit many companies hard and amplified disruptive trends in various sectors. In addition to other measures to address COVID-19 impact on businesses, Germany has made significant progress toward international best practices for restructuring: StaRUG — known as the German scheme — came into effect on 1 January 2021, as one of the most modern restructuring laws in the world. But how will StaRUG help German companies survive the crisis and what if insolvency is unavoidable?

Equitable mootness is a judicially created doctrine often applied in appeals from orders of bankruptcy courts confirming chapter 11 plans of reorganization. In instances where granting relief on appeal would result in overturning the confirmation order and therefore unravelling a substantially consummated chapter 11 plan, appellate courts have, in certain circumstances, abstained from deciding appeals in reliance on equitable mootness.

Shareholder of a Korean corporation (“Cuzco Korea”), the sole member of a chapter 11 limited liability company debtor (“Cuzco USA” or the “Debtor”), brought an adversary proceeding against the Debtor and others, asserting claims directly, derivatively on behalf of Cuzco Korea and “double derivatively” on behalf of the Debtor. On the defendants’ motion to dismiss, the bankruptcy court for the district of Hawaii was required to consider the impact of Korean law on the derivative claims as well as notions of forum non conveniens.

In the recent decision in Carlos Sevilleja Garcia v Marex Financial Limited,1 the Court of Appeal helpfully summarised the justifications for the English law rule against claims for reflective loss and confirmed that the rule applies equally to unsecured creditors of a company as it does to shareholders.

Highlights

Manley Toys Limited once claimed to be the seventh largest toy company in the world. Due to ongoing litigation and declining sales, it entered into a voluntary liquidation in Hong Kong. On March 22, 2016, the debtor’s appointed liquidators and foreign representatives filed a motion for recognition under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code. The motion was opposed by ASI Inc., f/k/a Aviva Sports, Inc. (“Aviva”) and Toys “R” Us, Inc. (“TRU”).

Accountability is the major theme of the recent government consultation regarding ‘Insolvency and Corporate Governance’, which follows high profile failures such as BHS and Carillion. The consultation contains proposals relating to four main areas as set out below.

Sales of businesses in distress

The proposal represents a significant extension of the current duties owed by directors. Under the proposal, a director of a parent company may be held liable for losses following a sale of a subsidiary if:

A recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, In re Tribune Company Fraudulent Conveyance Litigation,¹ represents a significant victory for shareholders who may get cashed out in connection with a leveraged transaction that precedes a company bankruptcy.