On January 23, 2024, the Court of Appeal in England and Wales (the "Appeal Court") upheld a challenge launched by dissenting creditors to overturn the UK Restructuring Plan (the "RP") of the Adler Group previously approved by the High Court under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (Strategic Value Capital Solutions Master Fund LP and others v AGPS BondCo PLC [2024] EWCA Civ 24).

It’s been a difficult last few years for the licensed trade and the hospitality and leisure sector generally, both in terms of recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic and, more recently, the wider economic challenges facing the industry.

The threat of insolvency looms large and with it comes various regulatory considerations for insolvency practitioners (IPs): firstly, liquor licensing considerations that might arise post-appointment and, secondly, broader health and safety issues that can shift into sharp focus.

Premises licences

One of the most stressful situations that a company director can face is their business becoming insolvent.

With the worry of fighting to keep the organisation from falling into administration or being wound up, it is easy to forget that directors’ duties remain applicable.

In fact, the risks and responsibilities increase when a company is in financial strife. This article explains everything you need to know about complying with directors’ duties when your company is insolvent.

The overriding duty

This Quickguide outlines some practical considerations for companies whose contractual counterparties are experiencing financial distress, including what questions may be asked of the counterparty in relation to its distress and how to negotiate payment terms or recover debts.

1. Overview

Following a series of important decisions in England and across Europe, it is now beyond doubt that court-based restructuring processes should be approached from the outset as pieces of litigation.

We have seen increasingly sophisticated challenges to restructurings, which the courts are willing to accommodate. In appropriate cases, the courts have also refused to sanction restructurings.

TO BE OR NOT TO BE (SOLVENT) - A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SINGAPORE, UK, US, AND AUSTRALIA ON RECOGNISING FOREIGN PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE UNCITRAL MODEL LAW PIERRE DZAKPASU, ANNE JESUDASON, FLORENCE LI The recent case of Ascentra Holdings, Inc v. SPGK Pte Ltd [2023] SGCA 32 (Ascentra) has drawn a line in the sand in the Singapore court's interpretation of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (UNCITRAL Model Law), as incorporated in the Third Schedule of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (IRDA) to create the Singapore Model Law.

In 2021, the FCA published its Guidance for IPs on how to approach regulated firms. Since then, there have been changes in the legal framework affecting firm failure, changes in the regulatory framework and changes in the UK economic climate.

The FCA is consulting on amendments to reflect these changes including:

In the current market, investors are increasingly considering their options in relation to the stressed and distressed credits in their portfolios. Whilst mindful of stakeholder relationships, secured lenders may, in some circumstances, wish to consider the "nuclear option": enforcing their share pledge over a holding company of the operating group (ideally, such pledge being over a single company which directly or indirectly holds the entire business - a "single point of enforcement").

ICC Judge Greenwood’s judgment in Kendall & Anor v Ball & Anor (Re Sherwood Oak Homes Ltd – Sherwood Oak Holdings Ltd) [2024] EWHC 746 (Ch) arises out of an application by the administrators of Sherwood Oak Homes Ltd and Sherwood Oak Holdings Ltd under para 63 Sch B1 Insolvency Act 1986 and/or s 234 Insolvency Act for a declaration that land forming part of a development site in Mansfield Woodhouse was held on resulting and/or constructive trust for the benefit of Homes or Holdings and an order for its transfer.

In the recent High Court case of Drelle v Servis-Terminal LLC [2024] EWHC 521 (Ch) the Court was asked to answer that very question. David Garner and Owen John of our Commercial Disputes Team analyse the outcome below.

The case is of potential importance to UK businesses that conduct business outside of the UK.

Background