Restructuring Plans

Spurred on by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, the government pushed through the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA 2020).

Among the reforms, CIGA 2020, s 7 and Sch 9 introduced a Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006)—Arrangements and Reconstructions for Companies in Financial Difficulty (an RP). In June 2022, the Government’s review concluded that the RP has largely met its objectives.

On 23 January 2024, the Court of Appeal handed down its decision in Re AGPS BondCo plc; sub nom Strategic Value Capital Solutions Master Fund LP v AGPS BondCo plc, setting aside the previous sanction order for the restructuring plan (though note that leave to appeal to the Supreme Court has been granted, but not pursued to date). Snowden LJ delivered the leading judgment (with which Nugee LJ and Sir Nicholas Patten agreed) and held that the RP was unfair because it was contrary to the pari passu principle. Snowden LJ gives guidance on many aspects of RPs including (among other things): time-tabling, classes, fair allocation of the restructuring surplus, how cross class cramdown (CCCD) should be applied

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Restructuring & Insolvency News

High Court clarifies position of sole directors under Model Articles and the interaction between UK sanctions regulations and in-court appointment of administrators (Re KRF Services (UK) Ltd and others)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: This High Court case (which addresses two important issues in UK company law and sanctions regulations) will be of interest to insolvency practitioners, corporate and restructuring lawyers, sanctions lawyers, and businesses and individuals which are affected by sanctions. Firstly, it clarifies the position of sole directors under the Model Articles for private limited companies. The court ruled that a sole director can validly pass board resolutions and bind the company, regardless of whether they have always been the sole director or were previously part of a multi-member board. This interpretation resolves conflicts between Article 7(2) and Article 11(2) of the Model Articles, with the court favouring Article 7(2)'s provisions. Secondly, the case examines the interaction between UK sanctions regulations and the in-court appointment of administrators. The court determined that making an administration application and order does not breach asset-freezing sanctions, even when the company is designated or controlled by a sanctioned person. While an Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) license is typically required for administrators to act, the court retains discretion to make immediate appointments in urgent situations. Written by Joshua Ray and Duncan Henderson, partners at CANDEY, which acted for the First and Second Applicants on this matter.

View Restructuring & Insolvency by content type :

Popular documents