Among the raft of measures it proposes, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill seeks to introduce a new mechanism for a “compromise or arrangement” to be put in place between a company and its creditors and/or shareholders, which is widely referred to as a ‘Restructuring Plan’.
While the Bill makes its way through the legislative process (which can be tracked on the Parliament.uk site), we think the following points are essential reading:
The Government undertook a review of the UK’s corporate restructuring and insolvency framework in 2016, and further consulted on new means to strengthen it in 2018. The pace of change then slowed, no doubt in no small part because (in those relatively halcyon days) political bandwidth was largely taken up by Brexit discussions. COVID-19 has of course changed all that, necessitating some drastic and immediate changes to our insolvency regime. Alongside the temporary measures introduced in response to the pandemic, the Government has taken the opportunity to fast-track some key new alternative procedures to support business rescue, anticipating that they will be more important than ever in the months and years ahead.
For a company to be eligible for a Restructuring Plan:
There is no insolvency test – but there must be a degree of existing or forecast financial distress.
Schemes of arrangement under English law (Schemes) are provided for in Part 26 of the Companies Act 2006. The Bill proposes the Restructuring Plan be brought in under a new Part 26A of that Act, inserting new sections 901A to 901L.
Like Schemes, the Restructuring Plan:
One of the drawbacks of Schemes is the ability for certain creditors to hold out and disrupt a proposal that would otherwise save a company, or otherwise achieve the Scheme’s aim, potentially for its own commercial reasons. The Restructuring Plan imports a key feature of US Chapter 11 bankruptcies: a ‘cross class cram down’. The Court has the discretion to impose the Plan on dissenting classes if it considers it is fair and equitable, and if satisfied that:
Both criteria require consideration of the most likely alternative to understand where the value will break. That may or may not be an insolvency procedure, and identifying the most appropriate comparator could lead to considerable argument. The views of creditors who would likely be wholly paid, or wholly unpaid, in that scenario will not be relevant.
The cross class cram down would enable debt-for-equity swaps to be imposed without shareholder consent, which Schemes cannot achieve, and the potential for empowering junior creditors.
Under the Bill, any company which could be wound up under the Insolvency Act 1986, including a foreign company, could be subject to a Restructuring Plan. This would include financial services companies, albeit the Secretary of State would have the discretion to disapply the provisions in that sector later.
In reality, the complexity and expense of preparing any Plan will mean it will be most useful complex debt restructuring and/or cross-border restructurings. The existing success of Schemes which are well-established in those fields, and the enviable international reputation of the English courts in considering restructuring issues, will mean the Restructuring Plan would be competitively positioned for the financial rebuilding needed as the world starts to emerge from the restrictions of the pandemic.
For further information on this article, please contact our Restructuring & Insolvency team.
We produce a range of insights and publications to help keep our clients up-to-date with legal and sector developments.
Sign up