The provision of bonds by contractors as security has assumed renewed importance as a means of protecting employers, given the rising trend of contractor insolvencies.  

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.

Last week was a busy week for the courts: we reported on the landlord-led challenges to the New Look CVA and the Virgin Active restructuring plan. Neither judgment made happy reading for landlords, with all challenges dismissed in New Look and the restructuring plan sanctioned despite their objections in Virgin Active. The story has slightly improved for landlords today with the court revoking the Regis CVA. There are important findings from Regis, but in itself the judgment will not be sufficient to turn the tide.

After Virgin Atlantic and Pizza Express achieved ‘too much consent’ and did not need cross-class cram down in the end, DeepOcean is the first judgment applying cross-class cram down as part of a restructuring plan.

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill has been introduced to Parliament. MPs will consider all stages of the Bill on 3 June 2020 and it will then progress to the House of Lords. The Bill is subject to the fast-track procedure as it aims to give companies flexibility and breathing space to continue trading in the COVID-19 crisis rather than entering into insolvency.

In addition to the crisis-related measures, there are three key areas of the Bill which will affect financial services companies and their arrangements with customers:

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: