Jonathan Akinluyi#6169

Jonathan Akinluyi

Solicitor, Latham & Watkins
Jonathan Akinluyi is experienced in representing clients in cross-border restructurings implemented out of court or through the use of restructuring and insolvency proceedings in various jurisdictions. His recent experience includes advising:

  • ­         Danaos Corporation in its debt refinancing, which reduced its US$2.2 billion of outstanding debt by US$551 million. This matter was named Large Company Turnaround of the Year at the 2019 Turnaround Management Association Awards and the team was awarded Transatlantic Restructuring Team of the Year at the 2019 Transatlantic Legal Awards;
  • ­         Brunswick Rail Limited in connection with the restructuring of the US$600 million 6.50% guaranteed notes due 2017 issued by one of its subsidiaries;
  • ­         Stephen Taylor, the conflicts administrator of Nortel Networks S.A. in relation to Nortel Networks S.A.’s entitlement to a portion of the US$7.3 billion sale proceeds held in escrow on behalf of the various Nortel Network estates following the group’s bankruptcy sale, and the settlement of creditor claims through its English law administration and CVA proceedings;
  • ­         SunEdison, Inc., a leading renewable energy business, in connection with its Chapter 11 filing and international reorganisation;
  • ­         Roust Trading Limited in a US$550 million restructuring involving the exchange of two series of loan participation notes issued by Russian Standard Finance S.A., used to fund loans to Russian Standard Bank, an indirect subsidiary of Roust Trading Limited, in favour of new notes issued by a new subsidiary; and
  • ­         TORM A/S, a shipping company in Denmark, in its US$1.4 billion financial restructuring via a scheme of arrangement.
Contributed to

9

Cross-border recognition of schemes
Cross-border recognition of schemes
Practice notes

This Practice Note, produced in partnership with Jonathan Akinluyi of Latham & Watkins LLP and Riccardo Alonzi of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom (UK) LLP, looks at how schemes of arrangement (or Part 26 schemes or s 895 schemes) are treated in foreign jurisdictions and discusses the various different ways that a scheme may be recognised under the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (the Model Law on Insolvency). It discusses whether various regulations or conventions apply, including (for proceedings commenced before IP completion day) the EU Recast Regulation on Insolvency 2015/848 , EU Brussels I or EU Brussels I (recast), the Rome Convention and the Rome I Regulation. It looks at the need to obtain expert evidence from foreign lawyers that the scheme is likely to be recognised in their jurisdiction, the use of parallel actions to support schemes, or the requirement for undertakings from creditors. It also considers using COMI shifts to benefit from the EU Recast Regulation on Insolvency or the Model Law on Insolvency.

Effect of schemes of arrangement and release of security
Effect of schemes of arrangement and release of security
Practice notes

This Practice Note, produced in partnership with Jonathan Akinluyi of Latham & Watkins LLP and Riccardo Alonzi of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom (UK) LLP, looks at what happens when a court has sanctioned a scheme of arrangement (also known as Part 26 scheme or s 895 scheme), including how security is treated within a scheme and whether third parties can be released by a scheme.

Enforcing share security
Enforcing share security
Practice notes

This Practice Note, produced in partnership with Jonathan Akinluyi of Latham & Watkins LLP and Riccardo Alonzi of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom (UK) LLP, considers the different forms of share security, the main enforcement options (power of sale, foreclosure, appropriation and appointing a receiver or administrator), practical considerations in determining the appropriate enforcement mechanics and further considerations such as environmental issues, pension deficits and provisions of the Takeover Code.

Establishing jurisdiction and sufficient connection for schemes of arrangement
Establishing jurisdiction and sufficient connection for schemes of arrangement
Practice notes

This Practice Note, produced in partnership with Jonathan Akinluyi of Latham & Watkins LLP and Riccardo Alonzi of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom (UK) LLP, looks at establishing jurisdiction and sufficient connection for a scheme of arrangement under section 985 of the Companies Act 2006 (Part 26 schemes) and the interaction between English law and EU law. It looks at how foreign (ie non-English) companies can benefit from an English scheme and case law, specifically amending the governing law and jurisdiction to establish jurisdiction.

Schemes of arrangement and restructuring plans—class issues
Schemes of arrangement and restructuring plans—class issues
Practice notes

This Practice Note, produced in partnership with Jonathan Akinluyi of Latham & Watkins LLP and Riccardo Alonzi of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom (UK) LLP, looks at class issues in scheme of arrangements (Part 26 schemes or s 895 schemes) and restructuring plans (Part 26A schemes or plans) including class composition, the relevant comparators to a scheme (eg liquidation), the distinction between rights and interests, minority oppression, whether the use of consent payments, incentive fees or lock up agreements creates a separate class and manipulation of the classes.

Schemes of arrangement—convening hearing and sanction hearing
Schemes of arrangement—convening hearing and sanction hearing
Practice notes

This Practice Note, produced in partnership with Jonathan Akinluyi of Latham & Watkins LLP and Riccardo Alonzi of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom (UK) LLP, looks at the court’s role in schemes of arrangement (s 895 schemes or Part 26 schemes). Covering both convening hearings and sanction hearings, it covers classes of creditors, fair representation of classes, fair scheme terms, any blot on the scheme, the effect of a sanction order and convening order and inter-conditionality within schemes.

Schemes of arrangement—process and statutory framework
Schemes of arrangement—process and statutory framework
Practice notes

This Practice Note, produced in partnership with Jonathan Akinluyi of Latham & Watkins LLP and Riccardo Alonzi of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom (UK) LLP, looks at the process and statutory framework concerning a scheme of arrangement (or Part 26 scheme or s 895 scheme). It looks at the definition and basis in statute of a scheme, the court’s jurisdiction to approve a scheme and the process for getting a scheme approved, including: negotiating with creditors, sending the practice statement letter to creditors, applying to court for the convening hearing, giving notice to creditors of the scheme, holding the creditors’ meeting(s) to approve the scheme, the sanction hearing by the court and the filing of the sanction order at Companies House.

Schemes of arrangement—voting and cram-down
Schemes of arrangement—voting and cram-down
Practice notes

This Practice Note, produced in partnership with Jonathan Akinluyi of Latham & Watkins LLP and Riccardo Alonzi of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom (UK) LLP, discusses voting within a scheme of arrangement (or Part 26 scheme or s 895 scheme) and how dissenting creditors may be crammed down if the scheme is approved by the appropriate majorities (a majority in number representing 75 per cent in value of the creditors or class of creditors voting in person or by proxy at each of the scheme meetings). It looks in detail at the numerosity requirement and compares the cram down provisions of the scheme with cram down under US chapter 11.

Valuation issues in schemes of arrangement
Valuation issues in schemes of arrangement
Practice notes

This Practice Note, produced in partnership with Jonathan Akinluyi of Latham & Watkins LLP and Riccardo Alonzi of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom (UK) LLP, looks at how a business might be valued for a scheme of arrangement (also known as Part 26 schemes or s 895 schemes), examining the various different methods of valuation such as liquidation (or break-up value), going concern basis as well as income basis, market comparison, leveraged buy-out (LBO) comparison and Monte Carlo valuations.

Practice areas

Qualifications

  • 2013 Legal Practice Course
  • 2012 Graduate Diploma in Law
  • 2011 BA, History

Membership

  • Insolvency Lawyers’ Association
  • R3

Panel

  • Contributing Author

Education

  • 2013 BPP Law School
  • 2012 BPP Law School
  • 2011 Durham University

If you expected to see yourself on this page, click here.