On 16 May 2023, Mr Justice Adam Johnson in the High Court refused to sanction the restructuring plan proposed by The Great Annual Savings Company Limited (GAS) following objections from HMRC.
Ben Gold, partner in RPC’s professional and financial risk team, explains how a recent Supreme Court case (BTI v Sequana) confirms company directors owe a duty to creditors if the company nears balance sheet or cash flow insolvency.
This ‘creditor duty’ is of increasing significance as insolvencies rise.
The Bankruptcy and Diligence (Scotland) Bill proposes to introduce measures designed to help those in financial difficulty and suffering with mental health problems to get some much needed "breathing space".
The English Court has refused to sanction two separate restructuring plans proposed by Nasmyth Group Limited (Nasmyth) and The Great Annual Savings Company Ltd (GAS). Both companies sought to use Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 to “cram down” His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC). Whilst neither decision is the first time that Part 26A has been used in this way1, they are the first to involve any active participation by HMRC in the sanction hearing2.
In the recent case of Avanti Communications Limited (in administration) [2023] EWHC 940 (Ch), the High Court revisited the perpetually knotty question: what level of control is necessary for a charge over assets to take effect as a fixed, rather than floating, charge?
On 21 April 2023, the English High Court handed down its written reasons for sanctioning the Adler Group restructuring plan proposed under the new Part 26A regime of the UK’s Companies Act 2006, which raised questions regarding the jurisdiction of the Court, cross-class cram downs, pari passu issues and competing valuations.
Since their introduction to the English insolvency regime in 2020, court sanctioned restructuring plans under Part 26A of the UK Companies Act 2006 – a new, more-flexible alternative to traditional UK restructuring tools – which take some of their DNA from U.S. Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings (in particular, the ‘cross class cram down’ mechanism), have been a hot topic for insolvency lawyers.
What can we say about the outcome of the GAS (Great Annual Savings Company Limited) sanction hearing that hasn’t already been reported?
It’s impossible not to comment on the fact that the plan was not sanctioned, and as a consequence of fierce opposition from HMRC that it avoided cram down. Nor that the court refused to sanction the plan on the basis that the conditions for cram down were not met – the court was not satisfied that HMRC would be better off under the plan and even if it were the judge said he would have not exercised his discretion to cram down.
When a customer is made bankrupt, whose knowledge is relevant to start time running under the extra three-year time bar rules in DISP 2.8.2R(2)(b)?
The High Court recently issued its ruling in the matter of Re Avanti Communications Limited (in administration). It is the first major case since the pivotal 2005 House of Lords decision of Re Spectrum Plus to examine the characteristics of fixed and floating charges.
Key points