From 31 December 2020, the European Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings (the “EIR”) ceased to apply in the UK. As a result:
The economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic led to a wave of creditor schemes of arrangement ("schemes") and restructuring plans ("RPs") in the second half of 2020, which shows no sign of abating in 2021. For the uninitiated, the scheme (a long-established tool) and the newer RP process are court led UK restructuring options that a company can use to bind a minority of creditors into a restructuring. An RP can also be used to "cram down" an entire dissenting creditor class into a deal where certain conditions are met.
The new Part 26A Companies Act Restructuring Plan procedure, dubbed the “Super Scheme”, (summarised here) was gathering pace in the English courts since its introduction in June last year. Last week’s judgment in gategroup presents a potential speed bump in terms of its implementation as the restructuring tool of choice in European cross-border restructurings.
The Pension Schemes Act 2021 (the Act) introduces new criminal offences which could potentially capture actions taken by anyone involved in planning and advising on corporate restructuring and insolvency, including insolvency practitioners and turnaround professionals, as well as (potentially) financiers and other stakeholders. The Act received Royal Assent in February, and is expected to come into force by the autumn of 2021.
The UK left the European Union (EU) on 31 January 2020 and the transition period in which EU rules continued to apply ended on 31 December 2020. As such, for insolvency proceedings opened in England after 31 December 2020, they will no longer benefit from automatic recognition in an EU member state.
Therefore, insolvency practitioners (IP) of a company with multijurisdictional operations or assets will be required to make an application in the relevant EU jurisdiction to have proceedings recognised in that jurisdiction.
From 6 April 2021, a new regime for witness statements in the Business and Property Courts will come into force. Practice Direction 57AC will introduce significantly tighter requirements that will apply to all trial witness statements signed on or after 6 April 2021, including those in claims that have already been issued.
Purpose of the new regime
Prior to 1st January, 2021, the cross-border recognition and enforcement of insolvency proceedings and judgements between the European Union ("EU") and the United Kingdom ("UK") was largely consolidated within the framework of the European Insolvency (Recast) Regulation (the "EIR") which generally attributed automatic recognition to such proceedings and/or judgements. Following the end of the Brexit transitional period on the 31st December 2020, the EIR no longer applies to the UK.
STOP RIGHT NOW, THANK YOU VERY MUCH – I NEED SOME TIME FOR A RESCUE.
THE PART A1 MORATORIUM
The moratorium is an insolvency process introduced by the Corporate Insolvency Governance Act 2020. It allows a financially distressed company to obtain temporary protection from creditor action, while the company attempts to rescue itself as a going concern. It is a debtor-in-possession process, overseen by a monitor—an insolvency practitioner.
Who can use it?
With an increase in airline restructuring activity caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, aircraft financiers, lessors and their lawyers around the world have been analysing whether a restructuring plan under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (a ‘Plan’) can be used by debtors to modify, without the creditors’ consent, their obligations under certain leases and security agreements to which the Cape Town Convention applies.
The UK’s new “restructuring plan” was enacted in June 2020.1 This highly-anticipated regime introduced (for the first time into English law) a tongue twisting “cross-class cram down” (CCCD) mechanism by which a restructuring plan can (at the court’s discretion) be imposed on an entire class of dissenting creditors or members.
Until recently, only two companies had successfully used the restructuring plan regime.2 In both instances, CCCD was not considered as the required voting thresholds (i.e. 75%) were met.