VE Vegas Investors IV LLC and others vs Shinners and others [2018] EWHC 186 Ch

Background

The applicants were creditors of VE Interactive Limited (In administration) (“VE”). VE encountered financial difficulties and its directors sought insolvency advice from insolvency practitioners at Smith and Williamson (“S&W”) and appointed them to advise on and effect a pre-pack sale of VE’s business and assets.

A recent decision of the High Court (Goel and another v Grant and another [2017] EWHC 2688 (Ch)) has provided a useful reminder that care must be taken when administrators enter into pre-contract negotiations and the risk of inadvertently entering into a binding contract before terms are finalised. It also deals with the risks of disposing of assets, even those that are difficult to value, without due process.

The Facts

In a move that surprised bankruptcy practitioners and other observers, a Delaware bankruptcy court recently rescinded an order approving a $275 million break-up fee relating to a failed merger.

The recent case ofCrumper v Candey Ltd [2017] EWCH 1511 (Ch) delivered an updated analysis of the operation of section 245 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“s245”). Although the insolvency proceedings (and much of the litigation before and after the insolvency commenced) originated in the British Virgin Islands, they were recognised in England and Wales under the Cross Border Insolvency Regulations 2006.

Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings comes into effect on 26 June 2017 for insolvency proceedings that are opened on or after that date. The Recast Regulation replaces the EC Regulation (1346/2000) on insolvency proceedings and has direct effect in the UK until such time as the UK leaves the EU.

After nearly 100 days in office, the Trump Administration and Republicans in Congress appear poised to have a significant impact on the restructuring industry. Although it is too early to tell exactly what the future holds in the Trump Era – even the so-called “Trump Bump” in the stock market appears to be pulling back – events taking place in Washington warrant close attention.

In Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County v. Hildebrand, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals explains how to read the phrase “applicable nonbankruptcy law” as it is used in the United States Bankruptcy Code. The case – a chapter 13 individual bankruptcy case – discussed the phrase in the context of section 511(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, which deals with the appropriate rate of interest applicable to tax claims.

Last week, the world of Rugby League was rocked by the news that Bradford Bulls, one of the giants of the game in the UK, had been placed into liquidation with reported debts of £1m and funding shortfall of a further £1m.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, in an opinion authored by Judge Thomas Ambro, has reversed two district court opinions and refused to allow a company to use a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing as a means to reduce interest on its debt obligations. Specifically, the court held that filing for bankruptcy would not excuse a debtor from its obligation for a “make-whole” payment otherwise due to its lenders.

The presumption that courts normally validate dispositions by a company subject to a winding up petition if such dispositions are made in good faith and in the ordinary course of business has been called into question in the recent case of Express Electrical Distributors Ltd v Beavis and others [2016].