In the recent case of Avanti Communications Limited (in administration) [2023] EWHC 940 (Ch), the High Court revisited the perpetually knotty question: what level of control is necessary for a charge over assets to take effect as a fixed, rather than floating, charge?

Since their introduction to the English insolvency regime in 2020, court sanctioned restructuring plans under Part 26A of the UK Companies Act 2006 – a new, more-flexible alternative to traditional UK restructuring tools – which take some of their DNA from U.S. Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings (in particular, the ‘cross class cram down’ mechanism), have been a hot topic for insolvency lawyers.

What can we say about the outcome of the GAS (Great Annual Savings Company Limited) sanction hearing that hasn’t already been reported?

It’s impossible not to comment on the fact that the plan was not sanctioned, and as a consequence of fierce opposition from HMRC that it avoided cram down. Nor that the court refused to sanction the plan on the basis that the conditions for cram down were not met – the court was not satisfied that HMRC would be better off under the plan and even if it were the judge said he would have not exercised his discretion to cram down.

The High Court recently issued its ruling in the matter of Re Avanti Communications Limited (in administration). It is the first major case since the pivotal 2005 House of Lords decision of Re Spectrum Plus  to examine the characteristics of fixed and floating charges.

Key points

The current economic landscape is presenting challenges for many businesses. Our restructuring and business advisory specialists have provided a list of ten top tips if your business is facing financial distress.

The current economic landscape is presenting challenges for many businesses. Our team at Shepherd and Wedderburn is here to help you navigate those challenges.

Adaptability and resilience have never been more important as many businesses are currently facing ongoing challenges, such as:

The judgment of Adam Johnson J in Re Great Annual Savings Company Ltd, (Re Companies Act 2006) [2023] EWHC 1141 (Ch) demonstrates again the rigorous approach the courts are taking in relation to the fulfilment of the conditions required to “cram down” dissenting creditors in restructuring plans as well as in the exercise of the court’s discretion to sanction them.

The recent sanction judgment gives important guidance on the way in which the court's discretion should be exercised when sanctioning a restructuring plan and considers whether it is necessary for opposing parties to provide valuation evidence of their own .

Key takeaways from the judgment

No worse off test: expert evidence

In a decision likely to be welcomed by both debtors and lenders, the High Court has held that a charge granted by Avanti Communications Limited (“Avanti”) was properly characterised as a fixed charge (rather than a floating charge) notwithstanding that the chargor retained an element of control over the charged assets. A key plank of the decision was that the relevant assets were not ‘fluctuating assets’ or ‘stock in trade’ that the chargor might be expected to dispose of in the ordinary course of its business.

Businesses are still struggling to recover post-Covid, with corporate insolvency figures continuing to rise. Recent research shows that the most common company insolvency procedure is creditors’ voluntary liquidation (CVL) and in March 2023, there was the highest monthly total of CVLs since January 2019.

The sectors that appear to have been hit the hardest are construction; wholesale and retail; accommodation and food services.

Re Nasmyth Group Ltd (Re Companies Act 2006) [2023] EWHC 988 (Ch) sets out Leech J’s reasons for refusing to sanction a Part 26A restructuring plan.

The company acted as the holding company of engineering subsidiaries in the UK and elsewhere and provided administrative and treasury functions to the rest of the group.