Demonstrating that dissenting creditors are no worse off under a contested restructuring plan than in the relevant alternative is an essential requirement for the court to exercise its power to sanction the plan

The power of the court to sanction a restructuring plan where one or more classes of creditors or members has not voted in favour of the plan by the requisite majority (being 75% in value of those present and voting) is referred to as the "cross-class cram down".

When a company is in the so-called “twilight zone” approaching insolvency, it is well-established that the directors’ fiduciary duties require them to take into account interest of creditors (the so-called “creditor duty”).

Demonstrating what would most likely happen if a restructuring plan were not sanctioned is an essential element for the exercise of the court's discretion to cram down the votes of dissenting creditors

Restructuring plans under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) may provide an alternative for companies in financial distress to formal insolvency (see our previous Insight).

If a company becomes insolvent, it is crucial that its directors comply with their legal duties. Failure to do so can result in personal liability for the company’s debts as well as legal action and disqualification from being a company director or being involved in a company in the future.

We look at exactly what a director’s duties on company insolvency are and some of the risks to be aware of in dealing with an insolvency.

What is insolvency?

When does the directors' duty arise to consider creditors' interests in the face of insolvency if a liability is disputed? Hayley Capani and Kate Garcia consider the case of Hunt v Singh and conclude we still don't have all the answers.

FSMA 2023 includes a court procedure for failing insurers to temporarily write-down liabilities, with implications for counterparties.

Judgment creditors should be aware that the English Court of Appeal has given guidance on the proper construction of s423 Insolvency Act 1986 (transactions defrauding creditors)¹.

Divorce and Family partner Lisette Dupré and Commercial Litigation partner Elaina Bailes were among 500 lawyers from more than 50 countries who gathered for the AIJA International Young Lawyers’ Congress in Rio between 20 and 26 August. This year’s theme was rethinking the law in four dimensions, which called upon speakers to think more about how the law may develop in the next five years than simply looking at how it stands today.

In Poland, pre-pack insolvency sales have been available since 1 January 2016. The legal framework regulating pre-pack insolvency sales was introduced into Polish insolvency law as part of a major reform of insolvency legislation that was aimed at preserving the value carried by the assets of insolvent entities and to ensure higher satisfaction for creditors.

In Hunt v Singh, the Court referred to the Supreme Court's landmark decision in BTI v Sequana (see our alert) in deciding when the directors' duty to creditors arose.

Background

Marylebone Warwick Balfour Management Limited (the Company), entered a tax avoidance scheme between 2002 and 2010 which the directors, on professional advice, believed to be valid.