Latham & Watkins operates worldwide as a limited liability partnership organized under the laws of the State of Delaware (USA) with affiliated limited liability partnerships conducting the practice in France, Hong Kong, Italy, Singapore, and the United Kingdom and as an affiliated partnership conducting the practice in Japan. Latham & Watkins operates in South Korea as a Foreign Legal Consultant Office. Latham & Watkins works in cooperation with the Law Office of Salman M. Al-Sudairi in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 continues to be a useful tool available to creditors for challenging transactions at an undervalue.

Section 423 gives the English court the power to set aside a transaction (most notably an asset disposal or a dividend) entered into by a debtor if the value of the consideration received by that debtor is significantly less than the value of the consideration the debtor provides to the other party to the transaction. Creditors ought to bear in mind this power when scrutinising a debtor’s previous actions.

In Akers (and others) v. Samba Financial Group [2017] UKSC 6, the UK Supreme Court has confirmed the limited nature of British insolvency officer-holders’ ability to void dispositions of a company’s assets held on trust. The Supreme Court also highlighted the potential dangers inherent in holding on trust assets located in jurisdictions which do not recognise common law trusts.

Much like the English Scheme of Arrangement which has become a popular debt restructuring solution for international debtors, the English High Court is an attractive forum for insolvency litigation thanks to the potent combination of wide-ranging powers available to Insolvency Practitioners (IPs) under the Insolvency Act 1986, and the increasing availability of litigation funding arrangements in the London market.

Eurosail’s journey has come to an end: the Supreme Court rejects the “point of no return” test, returns to balance sheet basics.

John Houghton, European Head of Restructuring and Co-Global Chair of Bankruptcy and Restructuring remarks:

English schemes of arrangement under the Companies Act 2006 (Schemes) have been increasingly used by non-English companies as a powerful tool to restructure their financial indebtedness. Recent prominent examples of German companies that have utilized Schemes to cramdown non-consenting or “holdout” creditors in order to restructure the company’s balance sheet include TeleColumbus, Rodenstock and Primacom.

There are several reasons for this trend:

98% of the liabilities of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in administration) (“LBIE”) were denominated in non-sterling currencies. The fall in sterling after LBIE entered administration resulted in significant paper losses for creditors, which they sought to recover from the LBIE estate. The recent decision of the UK Supreme Court in Waterfall I refused to recognize such claims.*

There are essentially three types of insolvency proceeding: liquidation, receivership and administration. Liquidators realise and distribute a company’s assets before dissolving the company. Receivers usually realise certain secured assets to repay certain debts, before appointing a liquidator. However, an administrator’s first objective is to rescue the company as a going concern. It is only if this is not practicable that the administrator can realise and distribute a company’s assets.

A real, as opposed to remote, risk of insolvency is not necessarily enough for the duties of a board of directors to switch from being owed to its shareholders to being owed to its creditors.

Administrators can be validly appointed to a company by the holder of a floating charge which was given by the company in breach of a negative pledge in favour of an existing secured creditor and even if, both at the time of the purported creation of that floating charge and on the day of the purported appointment of administrators, the company had no assets which were the subject of the floating charge.