The new Part 26A Companies Act Restructuring Plan procedure, dubbed the “Super Scheme”, (summarised here) was gathering pace in the English courts since its introduction in June last year. Last week’s judgment in gategroup presents a potential speed bump in terms of its implementation as the restructuring tool of choice in European cross-border restructurings.

The UK left the European Union (EU) on 31 January 2020 and the transition period in which EU rules continued to apply ended on 31 December 2020. As such, for insolvency proceedings opened in England after 31 December 2020, they will no longer benefit from automatic recognition in an EU member state.

Therefore, insolvency practitioners (IP) of a company with multijurisdictional operations or assets will be required to make an application in the relevant EU jurisdiction to have proceedings recognised in that jurisdiction.

Prior to 1^st January, 2021, the cross-border recognition and enforcement of insolvency proceedings and judgements between the European Union ("EU") and the United Kingdom ("UK") was largely consolidated within the framework of the European Insolvency (Recast) Regulation (the "EIR") which generally attributed automatic recognition to such proceedings and/or judgements. Following the end of the Brexit transitional period on the 31^st December 2020, the EIR no longer applies to the UK.

Very interesting judgment yesterday from Zacaroli J in "gategroup Guarantee Limited" (with a small g) that Part 26A plans are insolvency proceedings and therefore fall outside European civil and commercial jurisdictional rules. Pre-Brexit case law tells us that Part 26 schemes are probably not insolvency proceedings and are therefore capable of falling within those rules. Zacaroli J found that the "financial difficulties" threshold conditions to Part 26A plans (which do not exist for Part 26 schemes) made a significant difference.

Introduction

In R (on the application of KBR, Inc) (Appellant) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office (Respondent) [2021] UKSC 2¹ the Supreme Court held that the Serious Fraud Office ("SFO") may not compel a foreign company to produce documents held overseas under section 2(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 ("CJA 1987").

Status as of 17/02

Table of Content

• 1 Financial Support Measures
• 2 Capital Markets
• 3 Employment
• 4 Real Estate & Construction
• 5 Tax & Duties
• 6 Corporate, M&A
• 7 EU & Competition
• 8 Courts and Authorities
• 9 Healthcare
• 10 Insolvency & Restructuring
• 11 Insurance
• 12 Intellectual Property
• 13 Telecom & Data Protection
• 14 Other

1 Financial Support Measures

Wir beziehen uns auf das Schreiben vom 19. Oktober 2020 betreffend die Eröffnung der Vernehmlassung zum Entwurf der Verordnung zur Anpassung des Bundesrechts an Entwicklungen der Technik verteilter elektronischer Register und bedanken uns bestens für die Gelegenheit zur Stellungna

Wir beziehen uns auf das Schreiben vom 19. Oktober 2020 betreffend die Erffnung der Vernehmlassung zum Entwurf der Verordnung zur Anpassung des Bundesrechts an Entwicklungen der Technik verteilter elektronischer Register und bedanken uns bestens fr die Gelegenheit zur Stellungnahme.

Landmark decision holds that the SFO does not have the power to procure documents from foreign companies outside the jurisdiction.

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-19.

In this issue: