On 22 July 2022, judgment was handed down in relation to the sanction of the first Part 26A restructuring plan to be proposed by a small–medium enterprise (SME) in Re Houst Limited [2022] EWHC 1941 (Ch). The restructuring plan (RP) procedure set out in Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) has been widely considered to be out of the reach of SMEs due to excessive cost. The decision is also an interesting one for other reasons, notably the cram-down of HMRC as a dissenting creditor.

The Insolvency Service, has recently used its new powers to disqualify three former directors for dissolving their companies.

Houst’s Restructuring Plan was sanctioned last week. It was notable because of its size, that is, the company is very small compared with the financial giants which have used the process so far - and because it used the cram-down facility to overrule HMRC in its status as a secondary preferential creditor.

SMEs and the Restructuring Plan

Houst Limited's (the Company) restructuring plan (under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006) (RP) was recently sanctioned at the High Court on 22 July 2022.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Two years on: review of CIGA permanent measures

On 22 July 2022 and after the judge ordered a delay for more evidence, the English court sanctioned the restructuring plan proposed by Houst Limited (Houst). Houst is an SME that is concerned with the provision of property management services for short-term/holiday lets. Its business was badly affected by the Covid-19 pandemic, meaning it was both cash flow and balance sheet insolvent when proposing the plan.

Judgment has been reserved on the sanction of Houst Ltd’s restructuring plan at a hearing held in front of Zacaroli J on Friday morning (15 July 2022), while the company gathers the further valuation information requested by the court. If sanctioned, the plan will be the first use of the restructuring plan by an SME, and will involve a “cram” of HMRC notwithstanding the tax authority’s secondary preferential creditor status.

The proposed plan

The fallout from failed tax saving arrangements using Employee Benefit Trusts (“EBTs”) continues. In Hunt, directors who in reliance on tax advice from a firm of accountants, arranged for a company to use an EBT, were found not in breach of duty.  The decision whilst of comfort to directors, increases the likelihood of recovery actions following failed tax saving schemes shifting back on the accountancy firm tax advisors. 

Background

There has been much commentary recently on the treatment by lenders of individuals and small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs). Indeed, the FCA has made its expectations very clear – that lenders should fully support those experiencing financial difficulty.

As a restructuring professional and insolvency practitioner, and a former regulator, I have some competing views and thoughts on what this means and whether it is the optimum approach in the longer term.

The summer heatwave has started and this will no doubt result in an influx of Airbnb and holiday rentals. Nevertheless, the short-term lettings market is clearly still recovering from the financial impact caused to this sector during the pandemic.