We are happy to present the second issue of our e-magazine – Trilegal Quarterly Roundup.
Summary
For the first time, the court has exercised its power under s. 901C(4) Companies Act 2006 to exclude a company’s members and all but one class of its creditors from voting on a restructuring plan under Part 26A. The court was satisfied that only one class of creditors had a genuine economic interest in the company and noted that “this was not a marginal case”.
Key drivers for the court’s decision (see more detail below) were:
In our last blogpost (here) we reported how the court had, for the first time, exercised its power under s. 901C(4) Companies Act 2006 to exclude a company’s members and all but one class of its creditors from voting on a restructuring plan under Part 26A. The facts of this case are set out in more detail in that blogpost.
On 12 January 2022, the English High Court granted Smile Telecoms Holdings Limited’s (“Smile” or the “Company”) application to convene a single meeting of plan creditors (the super senior creditors) to vote on the Company’s proposed restructuring plan (the “Restructuring Plan”). It is the first plan to use section 901C(4) of the Companies Act 2006 (“CA 2006”) to exclude other classes of creditors and shareholders from voting on the Restructuring Plan on the basis that they have no genuine economic interest in the Company.
Background
The NCLAT, in its recent decision in Union of India v.Vijaykumar V Iyer,[1] has arguably created a new class of creditors, not previously known to the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’).
2020 was a transformative year for the consumer financial services world. As we navigated an unprecedented volume of industry regulation, Troutman Pepper leveraged our decades of experience and legal know how to help clients find successful resolutions and stay ahead of the compliance curve.
1.1 Corona Relief Fund (for more details check out our legal insight)
Status as of 17/02
Table of Content
- 1 Financial Support Measures
- 2 Capital Markets
- 3 Employment
- 4 Real Estate & Construction
- 5 Tax & Duties
- 6 Corporate, M&A
- 7 EU & Competition
- 8 Courts and Authorities
- 9 Healthcare
- 10 Insolvency & Restructuring
- 11 Insurance
- 12 Intellectual Property
- 13 Telecom & Data Protection
- 14 Other
1 Financial Support Measures
The Eleventh Circuit has joined the Second in holding that consent to be called using an autodialer and/or prerecorded messages, given as part of a contract, cannot be unilaterally withdrawn. Medley v. DISH Network, LLC, 2020 WL 2092594 (11th Cir. May 1, 2020).