The Supreme Court yesterday issued its decision in the long-running case concerning financial support directions (“FSDs”) issued by the UK Pensions Regulator to various companies in the Nortel and Lehman groups. The case considered where a company's obligations under an FSD should rank in relation to its other debts if the company was insolvent when the FSD was issued.

The Court of Appeal1 has ruled that foreign judgments in insolvency proceedings may be enforced by the English courts at common law, and that the ordinary principles which may prevent the enforcement of foreign judgments do not apply to insolvency judgments where the action from which the foreign judgment arises is integral to the collective nature of the insolvency proceedings.

Facts

Summary

On 30 March 2022 the High Court sanctioned a restructuring plan for Smile Telecoms Holding Limited in which the court for the first time allowed the exclusion of all but one class of creditors from voting on a restructuring plan. The sanction hearing considered several salient issues around challenges made to a plan by a creditor or shareholder, questions of jurisdiction and the concept of a "compromise or arrangement" in Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 ("CA 2006").

Background

In what is the third, sanctioned restructuring plan since the introduction of Part 26A Companies Act 2006 in June 2020, the previously untested “cross-class cram-down” mechanism has now been applied for the first time. Cross-class cram-down being the ability to impose a restructuring plan on dissenting stakeholders whether or not those dissenting creditors form part of the same class as the approving creditors.

A winding-up petition is one of the most critical pieces in a creditor’s armoury where a debt remains unpaid. However, in these challenging times, the government clearly wants to provide a temporary shield to companies who are unable to pay their debts due to COVID-19.

English courts recognise that shareholders hold a separate legal personality from the body corporate they own a stake in and will only go behind the corporate veil in limited circumstances. In the recent case of Onur Air Taşimacilik AŞ v Goldtrail Travel Ltd (In Liquidation) 1 , the Court of Appeal considered whether the financial means of the appellant’s wealthy controlling shareholder could be taken into account when making an order that the appellant had to make a substantial payment into court as a condition of being able to pursue its appeal.

In The Joint and Several Liquidators of QQ Club Limited (in liquidation) v. Golden Year Limited (HCCW 245/2011, 9 April 2013) (QQ Club), the Court of First Instance held that a liquidator's costs in pursuing an avoidance claim are "fees and expenses properly incurred in preserving, realizing or getting in the assets", and are payable out of the company's assets in priority to all other payments prescribed in rule 179 of the Companies (Winding-up) Rules. In reaching this conclusion, the court distinguished the English Court of Appeal's decision in Lewis v.

In the current economic climate, security for payment is key. Although banks have started to lend money again, they remain cautious and those construction firms with weak balance sheets remain at risk of insolvency. This article discusses five pitfalls in the context of some relevant case-law and devices to protect against these.

In May 2021, the UK Government published a Consultation which set out its proposals for targeted (but significant) amendments to certain aspects of the existing UK insolvency arrangements for insurers.

Introduction