The judgment of Adam Johnson J in Re Great Annual Savings Company Ltd, (Re Companies Act 2006) [2023] EWHC 1141 (Ch) demonstrates again the rigorous approach the courts are taking in relation to the fulfilment of the conditions required to “cram down” dissenting creditors in restructuring plans as well as in the exercise of the court’s discretion to sanction them.

In a decision likely to be welcomed by both debtors and lenders, the High Court has held that a charge granted by Avanti Communications Limited (“Avanti”) was properly characterised as a fixed charge (rather than a floating charge) notwithstanding that the chargor retained an element of control over the charged assets. A key plank of the decision was that the relevant assets were not ‘fluctuating assets’ or ‘stock in trade’ that the chargor might be expected to dispose of in the ordinary course of its business.

Businesses are still struggling to recover post-Covid, with corporate insolvency figures continuing to rise. Recent research shows that the most common company insolvency procedure is creditors’ voluntary liquidation (CVL) and in March 2023, there was the highest monthly total of CVLs since January 2019.

The sectors that appear to have been hit the hardest are construction; wholesale and retail; accommodation and food services.

Re Nasmyth Group Ltd (Re Companies Act 2006) [2023] EWHC 988 (Ch) sets out Leech J’s reasons for refusing to sanction a Part 26A restructuring plan.

The company acted as the holding company of engineering subsidiaries in the UK and elsewhere and provided administrative and treasury functions to the rest of the group.

The administrators of Avanti Communications Limited (the “Company”) sought directions from the High Court as to whether purported fixed charges in favour of the secured lenders to the satellite operating business should be recharacterised as floating charges (In the matter of Avanti Communications Limited (In administration) [2023] EWHC 940 (Ch)).

Summary of decision

It is now two years since the 30 April 2021 introduction of the Administration (Restrictions on Disposal etc. to Connected Persons) Regulations 2021 (the "Regulations") and a good time to look back at whether the Regulations have achieved their purpose, what issues remain and what the next two years might look like.

Summary

The High Court refused to sanction the restructuring plan put forward by Nasmyth Group Limited (Nasmyth) pursuant to Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 on 28 April 2023, despite both statutory conditions for cross-class cram down having been met.

Meanwhile, judgment is awaited in respect of the restructuring plan put forward by The Great Annual Savings Company Limited (GAS), which was proceeding simultaneously to Nasmyth and which also seeks to cram down HMRC.

Yesterday saw the end of a three-day sanction hearing for the restructuring plan (the “Plan”) of the Great Annual Savings (GAS) company, with Justice Adam Johnson reserving his judgment and importantly, his decision on whether to exercise cross-class-cram-down to sanction the Plan for a later date.

Nicola Sharp of Rahman Ravelli outlines a case where an individual’s knowledge of a tax evasion scheme was key

A cellphone company director lost his bid to challenge a £1.7 million-plus award against him for VAT fraud when the High Court said he had actual knowledge of his firm's tax evasion scheme.

In Bhatia v Purkiss [2023] EWHC 775, the High Court rejected an appeal from Deepak Bhatia, the company director of the now-defunct phone company JD Group Ltd, against a ruling from the Insolvency and Companies Court (ICC).

The judgment of the Court of Appeal (Newey, Males and Snowden LLJ) in Hunt v Ubhi [2023] EWCA Civ 417 demonstrates the importance of the adequacy of any undertaking in damages given in support of an application for a freezing order and underlines the need for full and frank disclosure.