On 4 March 2024, Mr Justice Richards of the English High Court delivered a judgment (the Judgment) in relation to the sanction of the restructuring plan under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (the Plan) of Project Lietzenburger Straße HoldCo S.à r.l. (the Plan Company). The Judgment required that a new creditors’ meeting of the Plan Company’s senior creditors be convened to vote on an amended Plan.
This overview includes case law since mid-2022 and provides an overview of legal amendments that have a practical impact on national and international contracts.
Insolvency-based rescission clauses
In the first restructuring plan since the Court of Appeal's landmark decision in Adler, the High Court has handed down an extraordinary judgment sanctioning McDermott's heavily contested Part 26A restructuring plan and berating the conduct of its opposing creditor. Despite this, the opposing creditor ended up with the financial compromise they asked for – not through the plan but, in part at least, because of events occurring in the parallel Dutch WHOA proceedings. This should give UK lawyers some pause for thought.
Diese Übersicht umfasst die Rechtsprechung seit Mitte 2022 und bietet einen Ausblick auf relevante Gesetzesänderungen, die sowohl für nationale als auch internationale Verträge von praktischer Bedeutung sind.
Insolvenzabhängige Lösungsklauseln
On 9 February, the High Court handed down its judgement on Re Link Fund Solutions Ltd [2024] EWHC 250 (Ch) (the "Link Case").
A Court-approved reduction of capital is one of the corporate reorganisation tools that has been successfully deployed by listed companies domiciled in the Cayman Islands in order to manage debt and liquidity.
The Employment (Collective Redundancies and Miscellaneous Provisions) and Companies (Amendment) Bill 2023 (the “Bill”) proposes amendments to the existing collective redundancy regime in insolvency situations. If enacted, the Bill will deliver on key Programme for Government commitments detailed in the Plan of Action – Collective Redundancies following Insolvency.
This is the fourth in a series of four articles on why Fed.R.Bankr.P. 9031, titled “Masters Not Authorized,” needs to be amended to authorize the utilization of special masters in complex bankruptcy cases.
The focus of this fourth article is on how federal courts have inherent authority to appoint special masters—and why that inherent authority should not be denied in bankruptcy cases.[Fn. 1]
Inherent Authority of Courts of Equity
1. The Joint Official Liquidators of FTX Digital Markets Ltd. (Brian Simms KC, Peter Greaves and Kevin Cambridge) (“the JOLS”) have entered into a Global Settlement Agreement (“GSA”) with the Chapter 11 Debtors of the FTX Companies ( approximately 130 FTX Companies which filed for Chapter 11 on 11th November 2022).
The rights of secured creditors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) have been a matter of continuous litigation and uncertainty. Early on, the challenge presented itself when during the insolvency resolution of Essar steel (India) Ltd., the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) directed the distribution of resolution plan proceeds equally amongst all classes of creditors, including financial, operational, secured and unsecured creditors.