Originally published on LexisLibrary and LexisPSL

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: Thomas Cook is the third large company to be wound up by the courts in 18 months, following British Steel and Carillion in 2018. Professor Andrew Keay, barrister at Kings Chambers, 9 Stone Buildings and Lincoln’s Inn and Professor of corporate and commercial Law at the University of Leeds, discusses why it entered liquidation rather than administration and how it will impact employees and customers of Thomas Cook.

Original news

Agriculture may be the (second?) oldest profession, but it is one that remains ever relevant to modern day life. Farmers are not only producing food, they are also environmental stewards through no other reason than they are the people literally on the ground and on the front line.

Retail Company Voluntary Arrangements (CVAs) are becoming an increasingly popular means of minimising liabilities and creating breathing space for tenants during a difficult trading environment on the High Street. Where does this leave landlords?

Since the news of Thomas Cook’s demise a lot of focus has been on its travel customers. But beyond repatriating stranded holiday makers, the impact of large scale insolvencies such as Thomas Cook, Carillion and British Steel can be far reaching.

Those relying on the likes of Thomas Cook for business may also face financial distress as the impact of its insolvency ripples down the supply chain. Potentially impacting suppliers of goods and services, those who relied on Thomas Cook’s business outside of the UK, employees and landlords.

Originally published on LexisLibrary and LexisPSL

In a world of multinational businesses, ever-changing consumer trends and political uncertainties, insolvencies and financial restructurings of a cross-border nature are a common occurrence. Officeholders therefore frequently need to consider options that allow, at the very least, recognition of their appointment in the jurisdictions where the insolvent debtor has (or had) operations, assets or other relevant connections.

The recent case of Martin v McLaren Construction [2019] EWHC 2059 (Ch) reminds practitioners to make sure that the debt which forms the basis of a statutory demand pursuant to s268(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986, is due and payable.

You might assume that a statutory demand under s268(1) is a demand for payment and therefore monies payable under an “on demand” guarantee can be demand by a statutory demand. However, the Court in Martin v McLaren confirmed otherwise.

The Facts

The High Court gave its ruling yesterday in the case of Discover (Northampton) Limited and others v Debenhams Retail Limited and others [2019] EWHC 2441 (Ch), rejecting four of the five grounds on which the Applicants disputed the validity of the company's Creditors Voluntary Arrangement ("CVA"), which was approved by creditors in May 2019.

On 19 September 2019, Norris J handed downjudgment in the challenge brought by six landlords against the Debenhams Retail Limited (Debenhams) company voluntary arrangement (CVA) which was approved by 94.71% of Debenham’s unsecured creditors on 9 May 2019.

Before ICC Judge Barber In the Insolvency and Companies List

The facts