Following the rejection of Stylo's proposed CVA earlier this year and the successful "unfair prejudice" challenge of Powerhouse's CVA in 2007, the recently approved CVA proposal put forward by JJB Sports, widely described by commentators as "ground-breaking", has generated significant interest in the CVA process and the use of a CVA to effect a solvent restructuring of a listed company without resorting to administration and a suspension of trading in its shares.
The following is a broad overview of the duties and liabilities of directors when their company is in financial difficulties. It is a general guide only and there will be variations according to the specific laws in each jurisdiction.
For lawyers dealing regularly with commercial secured lending, the requirement to register company fixed and floating charges has long been fraught with tension. It is a commercial necessity for charges over a company's assets to be registered in a publicly available register. Prospective creditors need to be able to establish how far the company's assets have been secured and are available to meet its commitments. Failure to register will result in the charge being invalid against any liquidator, administrator or creditor of the company if the company becomes insolvent.
With one exception, the Top 10 List of "public company" (defined as a company with publicly traded stock or debt) bankruptcies of 2016 consisted entirely of energy companies—solar, coal, and oil and gas producers—reflecting, as in 2015, the dire straits of those sectors caused by weakened worldwide demand and, until their December turnaround, plummeting oil prices. The exception came from the airline industry. Each company gracing the Top 10 List for 2016 entered bankruptcy with assets valued at more than $3 billion.
Borrowers, agent banks, syndicate members and secondary market purchasers incur, syndicate, sell and buy bank debt on the assumption that bank debt is not a “security.” However, a June 30, 2016, opinion in the General Motors preference litigation1shows that such an assumption may no longer be valid, at least under the Bankruptcy Code.
There have been a number of recent instances, including this year, of quoted companies calling general meetings to seek shareholder approval to remedy dividends that were paid unlawfully. Invariably these have been for non-compliance with a statutory formality rather than because the company did not have sufficient distributable profits to make the dividend.
Why are companies prepared to suffer the embarrassment and expense of going to their shareholders to fix the breach rather than simply doing nothing?
The English High Court has for the first time directly addressed the question of the extra-territorial application of s233 of the Insolvency Act 1986. The Official Receiver as Liquidator of Sahaviriya Streel Industries UK Ltd sought an order to restore access to an IT system provided to the Company by its parent company in Thailand. In granting permission to the Official Receiver to serve the application out of the jurisdiction, the Court was persuaded by the reasoning in the recent cases of Jetivia and Re Paramount Airways which concerned other provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986.
July 2018
2018 Summer review M&A legal and market developments
In this issue...
Contractual provisions.............................................................1 Company law...........................................................................4
Listed companies....................................................................7 Good faith................................................................................9
Authors: Philip Broke, Veronica Carson
In our June 4, 2009 Client Update, we reported on the jury verdict the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") obtained against Charles Conaway, the former CEO of Kmart Corp for misleading investors about inventory and liquidity levels as the company was approaching its January 2002 Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing.
Basic Capital Management, Inc. v. Dynex Commercial, Inc., 2011 WL 12067376 (Tex. Sup. Ct. J. Apr. 1, 2011)
CASE SNAPSHOT