On 23 January 2024, the Court of Appeal handed down its much anticipated judgment[1] on the appeal of the Adler restructuring plan pursuant to Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (“RP”), which was sanctioned by the High Court on 12 April 2023[2], with judgment setting out the reasoning for that decision handed down on 21 April 2023.
For those new to the world of RPs, we refer you to our overview here as a “beginner’s guide” to the terminology and basic process involved in an RP.
As we reported in a previous blog the German legislator in November 2022 introduced the Law on the Temporary Adaption of Restructuring and Insolvency Law Provisions to Mitigate the Consequences of the Crisis (SanInsKG). This addressed the difficulty of companies assessing their solvency during the crisis at that time, in particular as a result of the war in Ukraine, very high and volatile energy and raw materials prices, high inflation, rising interest rates and supply chain disruptions.
The Court of Appeal has, today, overturned the High Court’s decision to sanction the Part 26A restructuring plan put forward by the Adler Group (the “Plan”).
Following the Plan’s sanction by Judge Leech in the High Court in April 2023, dissenting creditors lodged an appeal, which was heard before the Court of Appeal in late October last year.
On 23 September 2023, the new Act on Preventive Restructuring (284/2003 Coll.) entered into effect in the Czech Republic (the “Czech Preventive Restructuring Act”), incorporating the EU Directive 2019/1023 on preventive restructuring frameworks in the Czech legal environment. This legislation has been designed to enable debtors in financial difficulties to continue business by changing the composition, conditions or structure of their assets and their liabilities, by carrying out operational changes or adopting other appropriate financial measures, prepared, and implemented to avoid debtors’ bankruptcy.
The judgment handed down in the matter of CB&I UK Ltd suggests that the English Courts will not expedite or truncate sanction hearing timetables to accommodate requests from companies which have applied for a restructuring plan under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (“Restructuring Plan”) unless there are good reasons for doing so. Distressed companies and practitioners will want to take heed of these recent developments in light of the fact that many Restructuring Plans are proposed in the context of a burning platform where time may be of the essence.
The CB&I hearing dealt with two applications. This blog only deals with the application made by an opposing creditor, Refineria de Cartagena SA (“Reficar”) for an extension of the timetable for the sanction hearing.
There are a few things that we can be almost certain of in 2024, and others are things to add to the watchlist, but with a potential change in government on the cards, there are likely to be a few curveballs thrown into the mix that none of us can predict.
In Lehman Brothers (PTG) Ltd (In Administration), the court considered whether to grant an order extending the administration of Lehman Brothers (PTG) Ltd (the “Company”) for a further two years and in doing so, provided some useful observations about when a court will grant an extension where a company is in distribution mode.
Amid the current market uncertainties, distressed asset sales are likely to rise. International investors are looking for efficient solutions, preferably ones that reflect solutions in their home jurisdictions. One popular mechanism is the use of pre-pack sales. A pre-pack sale manages the adverse impact of insolvency proceedings on the distressed company’s business, while reducing the time and cost of such proceedings, and offering greater asset realisation to be distributed among creditors.
With increased public awareness that a notice of intention to appoint administrators (NOI) has been filed, we are finding that third parties – usually the company’s creditors, suppliers and employees – are disrupting the administration process in a way that can cause significant risks to a company’s ability to continue trading, the overall value of its business and its ability to be rescued as a going concern.
A consensual resolution among all stakeholders is an important goal of any bankruptcy proceeding. But how can parties reach a consensual deal if financing is drying up quickly and the prospect of confirming a plan is grim? That was the issue facing the Rockport debtors (the “Debtors”) in their Delaware bankruptcy cases styled In re The RP Co. Liquidating, LLC. In this case, the Debtors filed a motion asking the bankruptcy court to approve a global settlement (the “Settlement”) with all parties-in-interest—except the Office of the United States Trustee (the “U.S. Trustee”). The Settlement offered general unsecured creditors the chance to receive a distribution in exchange for certain debtor and third-party releases.
