The High Court yesterday held that a Chairperson of a shareholder scheme meeting may reject votes cast against a scheme of arrangement in circumstances where the shares were acquired through an artificial share-splitting exercise designed to frustrate the scheme. It is the first English case to consider this issue and while it arose in the context of a shareholder scheme, the impact is also significant for debt restructurings implemented by way of a creditor scheme of arrangement.

Background

On 26 July, the Pensions Regulator (TPR) published a statment on financial support directions (FSDs) and insolvency, with the aim of helping 'the pensions and insolvency industries understand TPR's approach in relation to financial suppirt directions in insolvency situations.'

The High Court has in the past month ruled on two challenges to company voluntary arrangements (CVAs) on the grounds of unfair prejudice and material irregularity,  reaching a different conclusion in each case. 

The Chancellor’s Budget Report on 22 April included the following statement:

‘The Government will work to ensure that the regulations and procedures for dealing with troubled companies work to facilitate company rescues whenever they are appropriate, that the maximum economic value is rescued from companies that get into difficulties, and that the knock-on effects of company insolvencies on their creditors are minimised. Budget 2009 announces that the Insolvency Service will consult on:  

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:

On 12 May 2021, the High Court sanctioned Virgin Active’s Part 26A restructuring plan which had been heavily contested by certain landlords. This is the third restructuring plan to use cross-class cramdown (first used in the DeepOcean Group and subsequently in Smile Telecoms), and the first to bind dissenting landlord classes to lease compromises.

In Uralkali v Rowley and another [2020] EWHC 3442 (Ch), the High Court confirmed that it is unlikely that an officeholder would be found to owe a duty of care to participants in a sale process out of an insolvent estate. This is an important decision which will give officeholder’s considerable comfort that operating an administration or liquidation sale in the ordinary course is unlikely to expose them to risk of liability to a bidder for the way the process is run.

As the business world starts to count the cost of the COVID-19 pandemic and the government measures taken to contain it, attention is turning to the tools available to help companies that have been financially impacted.

Many companies are deferring payments to conserve liquidity, raising difficult questions around directors’ duties and leading to an immediate focus on how to protect the business from resulting creditor action.

On 22 November 2016, the European Commission published a draft directive on insolvency, restructuring and second chance. In this briefing we consider the proposals and what it means for European insolvency and for the UK.

On 22 November 2016, the European Commission published a draft directive on insolvency, restructuring and second chance (the Proposals).

What are the Proposals? The Proposals have three main parts:

The Supreme Court’s decision in a dispute over a parent company guarantee will change the way insolvency practitioners deal with the distribution of assets when a corporate group collapses.