DOCSLIB.ORG

Schemes of Arrangement

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Schemes of Arrangement Schemes of Arrangement David Robb and Malcolm Stephens Allens Arthur Robinson INTRODUCTION This afternoon we will discuss a form of corporate reconstruction of remarkable flexibility known as a scheme of arrangement. We will track some recent developments in the law and highlight two trends that have and are still occurring – the separation of takeovers principles and scheme principles and the redefining the role of the Court and the Australian Securities & Investments Commission. Our firm acted in two independent schemes proposed by CMPS&F Pty Ltd – a privately owned engineering company which had the good fortune of taking an initial equity stake in a highly profitable State Wide Roads – owner of the M5. Our experience in both cases introduced us to the active approach of the court, principally in the form of Mr Justice Santow, who brought his commercial solicitor skills into the court room and was keen to correct defects to scheme documentation and he also sought to refine and even suggest improvements to the proposals brought to him. The result of the Santow era were a range of practices and also law which are now undergoing some revision by the current court. Today we will be talking only about schemes with the members of a company. We will not explore the rarer class of scheme, being schemes with creditors. The fact of the matter is, that although the regime was originally designed to facilitate schemes with creditors, these are relatively rare these days as deeds of accompany arrangement and voluntary administrations are a more common form of dealing with creditor interests. Accordingly, to those insolvency practitioners in the audience, we trust that the talk is of some interest in any event. Before we talk through some of these trends and developments, first we shall briefly explain what a scheme of arrangement is. WHAT IS A SCHEME OF ARRANGEMENT? As hinted above, a scheme of arrangement is a court approved compromise or arrangement, it is entered into between a company and its creditors or members or any class or classes of them in accordance with section 411, Part 5.1 of the Corporations Act 2001. A further category of compromise or arrangement is a reconstruction or amalgamation, as contemplated in section 413, by which companies can effect transfers of assets or liabilities (including legal proceedings), through the stroke of the court’s pen in the form of its court order, along with the disillusion, without winding up, of the transferring corporation. dars S0111035743v3 150220 8.1.2003 Page 1 Interestingly, the terms compromise, amalgamation and reconstruction are all undefined under the Corporations Act and have been given wide meaning by the Courts. A “compromise” connotes the existence of some antecedent controversy or dispute over rights where the members or creditors give up certain rights. In this sense, the term “compromise” is given a somewhat limited meaning, as it does not permit the giving up of rights unless there is some form of pre-existing dispute (Mercantile Investment – General Trust Co v International Co of Mexico [1893]1 Ch 484-Lindley LJ). However, the term “arrangement” is defined in section 9 and in an inclusive way as “includes a reorganisation of the share capital of a body corporate by the consolidation of shares of different classes, by the division of shares into different classes, or by both these methods.” As was said by Mr Justice Santow in Re NRMA Ltd (2000) 33 ACSR 595 at 603: The word has been given a liberal meaning. Generally speaking, unless the arrangement is ultra vires the company or seeks to deal with the matter for which a special procedure is layed down by the Corporations [Act] or to evade a restriction imposed by the Corporations [Act], almost any arrangement otherwise legal which touches or concerns the rights and obligations of the company or its members or creditors, and which is properly proposed, may come under section 411. Schemes of arrangement can be effected only by Part 5.1 bodies – these are defined as being a company (that is a company registered under the Corporations Act), or a registerable body that is registered under Division 1 or 2 of Part 5B.2 – such bodies are most forms of body corporate, including incorporated associations and foreign bodies corporate. Australian entities that are not Part 5.1 bodies include statutory corporations and, until recently for example, Westpac Banking Corporation. The power of a scheme of arrangement comes as a result of the wide definition of the term “arrangement”; that it can incorporate compromises as well as offers; that it is effected merely by the stroke of the Court issuing its order (thereby reducing what would otherwise be an impossible amount of paperwork with separate agreements being entered into between the company and the relevant scheme participants); and that it is binding on dissentients and non-voters, provided that the requisite majorities approved the scheme and the Court exercises its discretion in favour of the scheme. Furthermore, in the context of merger or minority buy-out schemes the Gambotto expropriation principles do not apply. WHAT IS A SCHEME USED FOR? Members schemes of arrangement are most regularly adopted for the following corporate re-organisations – top hatting, merger, spin off, demerger and demutualisation. A “top hatting” scheme involves the parent company of a group being replaced with a new holding company. Such schemes have been adopted in order to create a holding company that is separate from its trading subsidiaries where the former holding company had itself dars S0111035743v3 150220 8.1.2003 Page 2 undertaken such trading activities or to transfer the place of incorporation of the holding company in order to obtain more favourable listing, capital raising or taxation regulation. As mentioned in the Santow quote above, a scheme of arrangement can only permit what is not otherwise prohibited or prescribed by another provision of the Corporations Act (Australian Securities Commission v Malborough Gold Mines Ltd (1993) 177 CLR 485). Accordingly, a reduction of capital cannot be effected under a scheme of arrangement and a separate company convened meeting must be held. This is because the reduction of capital provisions state that the power of a company to reduce its capital is conferred by Section 256B and that a company may not reduce its capital unless it does so in accordance with that section. Similarly, the only way a public company can give financial benefits to a related party on other than commercial terms is by following the procedures layed out in Part 2E of the Corporations Act – a scheme cannot be used to override those disclosure or approval requirements (Re NRMA Ltd (2000) 33 ACSR 595). Redeemable preference shares can be redeemed only on the terms on which they are on issue (section 254J(1)) and, accordingly, cannot be redeemed under a scheme. Similarly, a conversion of a class of preference shares into redeemable preference shares is not permitted because a conversion of that kind can only take place if the steps appropriate to a reduction of capital and a simultaneous increase of capital have been taken (Re St. James’ Court Estate Ltd [1944] Ch 6). Finally, the Corporations Act prescribes what sort of conversions of status a company can undertake – for example a proprietary company limited by shares can convert into an unlimited proprietary company, an unlimited company or a public company limited by shares and a company limited by guarantee can convert into a company limited by shares. However, for example, a company limited by shares cannot convert into a company limited by guarantee. A scheme of arrangement cannot be used to effect a direct change of company type (Australian Securities Commission v Malborough Gold Mines Ltd (1993) 177 CLR 485), although there is often another way around this problem, for example by effecting a top hatting scheme and, rather than converting a scheme company, placing a new parent company above it. TAKEOVER Vs SCHEME In the early days of considering a merger, we often have to advise on the relative merits of the takeover vs a scheme. There are certain transactions that are naturally suited to a scheme or takeover, such that the relative merits do not arise. For example, a top hatting scheme, which is essentially an internal re-organisation, is most appropriately effected by a scheme, while a cash bid for all the shares of the company more naturally effected by a takeover. Furthermore, a hostile or surprise bid can never be effected by a scheme of arrangement because the scheme dars S0111035743v3 150220 8.1.2003 Page 3 memorandum sent to shareholders is sent by the target company, not the bidder and the target cannot be compelled to do so while it can be compelled to issue a target statement. In a friendly merger, it does become relevant to consider the relative merits. It is inherent in the nature of the scheme that it provides more flexibility of how to structure a bid – for example, it does allow for compromises to be effected as part of the scheme and some of the more limiting rules under the takeovers code, for example, of no collateral benefits or unacceptable circumstances normally will not apply. This advantage of structuring flexibility may be weighed against a more flexible procedure in a takeover, especially with respect to intervening events. For example, it is quite common in a takeover for the bidding company to waive conditions initially set by it, if that is the commercial dynamic of the takeover. It is easier to increase bid consideration in a takeover and there is a prescribed regime for permitting this under the Act.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Brexit: a Unique Irish Opportunity for Cross-Border Restructuring? 14.02.2019
    briefing Brexit: a Unique Irish Opportunity for Cross-Border Restructuring? 14.02.2019 Certainty is a key element in any business planning. For corporate restructuring practitioners who are planning or working on cross border transactions, the uncertainty relating to Brexit and the departure of the United Kingdom from the European Union (“EU”) may have long-term significant consequences and a “no-deal” Brexit (without a withdrawal agreement and the certainty of a transition period) will have immediate and significant consequences for any such cross-border transaction. In this context, Irish law and the Irish Courts can provide practical and effective solutions to assist corporates (and their advisors) restructure their business and affairs in a straight-forward and easily understood manner. It is also an opportunity for the Irish legal system to demonstrate its value to international practitioners. This opportunity was also recognised in a recent proposal document to the Irish Government produced by the Law Society of Ireland and the Bar Council of Ireland entitled “Promoting Ireland as a leading centre globally for international legal services” (the “Report”). In the context of the UK’s exit from the EU, the Report states that “we foresee a meaningful role for Irish law in certain areas and industry sectors allied with the provision of a greater range of legal services in Ireland for the benefit of international and Irish business. In a number of sectors, we believe that Ireland as a location and the Irish law and the Irish Courts are and can be advantageous contractual choices for international clients (now or in the future)”.
    [Show full text]
  • Irish Examinership: Post-Eircom a Look at Ireland's Fastest and Largest
    A look at Ireland’s fastest and largest restructuring through examinership and the implications for the process Irish examinership: post-eircom A look at Ireland’s fastest and largest restructuring through examinership and the implications for the process* David Baxter Tanya Sheridan A&L Goodbody, Dublin A&L Goodbody [email protected] The Irish telecommunications company eircom recently successfully concluded its restructuring through the Irish examinership process. This examinership is both the largest in terms of the overall quantum of debt that was restructured and also the largest successful restructuring through examinership in Ireland to date. The speed with which the restructuring of this strategically important company was concluded was due in large part to the degree of pre-negotiation between the company and its lenders before the process commenced. The eircom examinership demonstrated the degree to which an element of pre-negotiation can compliment the process. The advantages of the process, having been highlighted through the eircom examinership, might attract distressed companies from other EU jurisdictions to undertake a COMI shift to Ireland in order to avail of this process. he eircom examinership was notable for both the Irish High Court just 54 days after the companies Tsize of this debt restructuring and the speed in entered examinership. which the process was successfully concluded. In all, This restructuring also demonstrates the advantages €1.4bn of a total debt of approximately €4bn was of examinership as a ‘one-stop shop’: a flexible process written off the balance sheets of the eircom operating that allows for both the write-off of debt and the change companies.
    [Show full text]
  • Singapore's New “Supercharged” Scheme of Arrangement
    KEY POINTS Feature Singapore’s new regime combines elements of the US Ch 11 process with the traditional creditor scheme of arrangement. Companies may apply for a broad moratorium that can apply to acts outside of Singapore. Moratoriums can also be granted in respect of certain related companies. There is a (cross-class) cram down mechanic in respect of unsecured debt, but its effectiveness in practice is uncertain. The changes include introduction of a “pre-packaged scheme” which bypasses the requirement for scheme meetings, where it can be demonstrated the outcome is a foregone conclusion. It remains to be seen the extent to which foreign courts will recognise and give effect to a Singapore scheme. Authors Paul Apáthy and Emmanuel Chua Singapore’s new “supercharged” scheme of arrangement In this article, the authors consider aspects of Singapore’s new “supercharged” these new provisions are based on concepts scheme of arrangement procedure and its potential use in cross border restructurings. found in Ch 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. By adopting these concepts, Singapore is seeking to create a new regime that incorporates INTRODUCTION Central to the reforms is the the “best of both worlds” of the scheme of SINGAPORE’S NEW“SUPERCHARGED” SCHEME OF ARRANGEMENT Singapore is seeking to become an augmentation of the scheme of arrangement arrangement and Ch 11 procedures. ■international debt restructuring hub, process with a number of new provisions, akin to London or New York. This aspiration some of which were adopted from the United APPLICABILITY OF SINGAPORE is unambiguously conveyed in the title of the States Bankruptcy Code (the Bankruptcy SCHEMES TO FOREIGN COMPANIES ‘Report of the Committee to Strengthen Code).
    [Show full text]
  • The Scheme of Arrangement: a Viable Option for Nigerian Companies In
    EMERGING MARKETS RESTRUCTURING JOURNAL ISSUE NO. 1 — SPRING 2016 The Scheme of Arrangement: A Viable Option for Nigerian Companies in a Downturn? By DIPO OKURIBIDO In Nigeria, large corporate bankruptcies are a rarity, and available literature on the subject tends to deal more with theory and provisions of existing law than with actual precedents and examples of lenders seeking liquidation, or to otherwise enforce security. Reasons abound for this situation, but perhaps the most striking of these is the fact that existing corporate insolvency legislation generally focuses on the actual liquidation of the insolvent company, as opposed to establishing buffers or moratoriums to create opportunities for its turnaround or rescue. The result of the limited insolvency regime is that Nigerian law establish a process for a Nigerian company to enter into a companies simply do not surrender to bankruptcy proceedings compromise or arrangement with its creditors or shareholders until there is clearly and absolutely no hope of survival. Up to (or any class of either of them). that point, in the gap between limping and dying, the tool of choice has been the Scheme of Arrangement. Under the rules contained in the Principal Companies Legislation1 (and supplemented in recent iterations of the The Nigerian Scheme of Arrangement Securities and Exchange Commission Rules and Regulations2), a public company would need to file an application for the The Nigerian Scheme of Arrangement is loosely based on the proposed scheme with the Nigerian Securities and Exchange UK Scheme of Arrangement. Similarly with its source material, Commission (“SEC”) and, following the SEC’s approval of the the Scheme of Arrangement provisions under Nigerian scheme, would then need to make an application to the Federal 26 EMERGING MARKETS RESTRUCTURING JOURNAL ISSUE NO.
    [Show full text]
  • Schemes of Arrangement As Restructuring Tools
    Schemes of Arrangement as Restructuring Tools Since the start of the current credit crunch there has been a huge increase in the use of schemes as a restructuring tool. In most cases a scheme will be the fall-back strategy for use in cases where consensual changes to creditors’ and/ or shareholders’ rights under finance documents cannot be negotiated. Often the need for a scheme will fall away, but the prospect of a scheme will have helped deliver the consensus. So as well as those schemes that see their way through to implementation, there are many draft schemes in the marketplace. The purpose of this client note is to provide an overview of the use of schemes as a creditor restructuring tool and to highlight some of the key practice points. 1 What is a scheme? constituencies. The dominant driver of the creditor negotiations will usually be the A scheme of arrangement is a very flexible and creditor(s) who hold security and/or enjoy a long-established Companies Act procedure priority in repayment on an enforcement at the which can be used to vary the rights of some or point at which the value of the business breaks all of a company’s creditors and/or shareholders. (known as the fulcrum). That said, the question As long as a scheme receives the support of the of the value of a business will invariably be a statutory majorities of each class of creditor contentious point between the various stake- and/or shareholder whose rights are affected by holders in a restructuring and the value of the it, and the court sanctions it, the scheme will be business is in any event likely to move during binding on all creditors and/or shareholders, the course of restructuring negotiations as the including those within each class voting against business continues its operations.
    [Show full text]
  • Schemes of Arrangement
    Schemes of arrangement a special supplement to www.runoffbusiness.com PricewaterhouseCoopers PricewaterhouseCoopers (www.pwc.com) is the world’s largest professional services organisation. Drawing on the knowledge and skills of more than 125,000 people in 142 countries, we build relationships by providing services based on quality and integrity. The following areas of the firm have contributed to this supplement: Solutions for Discontinued Actuarial & Insurance Insurance Business Management Solutions PricewaterhouseCoopers’ Solutions for Discontinued PricewaterhouseCoopers’ Actuarial & Insurance Insurance Business team comprises 140 insurance Management Solutions (AIMS) practice is a global experts dedicated to dealing with issues facing practice of more than 450 consultants, providing life and discontinued insurance business. The team has an non-life actuarial and insurance advisory services. With a extensive range of specialists with expertise in proven track record across five continents and practices restructuring. in 14 countries, AIMS offers the global presence, resources and expertise to meet its clients’ most critical They include qualified chartered insurance practitioners, needs. Our actuaries regularly provide advice to both the accountants, restructuring practitioners and specialists insurance industry and broader financial services in risk management, treasury and business providers. management. As part of the world’s largest professional services firm, This team has a broad range of experience, including AIMS can also call on the global expertise of auditors, board level strategic management, claims run-off tax advisers, corporate finance and discontinued management, collections, underwriting, risk insurance business specialists who specialise in the management, investigations and finance. insurance sector. The team can also draw on the strength of offices Our non-life practice is the UK’s largest practice of its around the world including dedicated staff in the US and kind.
    [Show full text]
  • Schemes of Arrangement As Restructuring Tools
    Schemes of Arrangement as Restructuring Tools Since the start of the current credit crunch there has been a huge increase in the use of schemes as a restructuring tool. In most cases a scheme will be the fall-back strategy for use in cases where consensual changes to creditors’ and/ or shareholders’ rights under finance documents cannot be negotiated. Often the need for a scheme will fall away, but the prospect of a scheme will have helped deliver the consensus. So as well as those schemes that see their way through to implementation, there are many draft schemes in the marketplace. The purpose of this client note is to provide an overview of the use of schemes as a creditor restructuring tool and to highlight some of the key practice points. Timeline Over time, the English courts have become increasingly willing to accept companies’ innovative arguments regarding the establishment of a “sufficient connection” with England for the purposes of a Scheme. German company English governing English governing English governing Dutch company law and exclusive German governing law and exclusive law and exclusive jurisdiction New York governing law, amended to jurisdiction jurisdiction law and non- English law No UK lenders and Mostly UK lenders Mostly UK lenders exclusive jurisdiction no other connection No COMI shift to the UK establishments Some UK customers with England COMI shift to the UK UK 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 1 What is a scheme? 2 Who can use a scheme? A scheme of arrangement is a very flexible and Schemes need to be implemented in accordance long-established Companies Act procedure with the Companies Act 2006 and involve two court applications.
    [Show full text]
  • Restructuring Tools in the United Kingdom and in Spain
    RESTRUCTURING TOOLS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND IN SPAIN Carmen Alonso and Hugo Bowkett Lawyers at LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 1 [email protected] Revista General de Insolvencias & Reestructuraciones / Journal of Insolvency & Restructuring 2 / 2021 ABSTRACT: Comparative analysis of the restructuring tools available for Spanish companies to restructure its debt under the laws of both England and the Kingdom of Spain, focusing on the English scheme of arrangement, the restructuring plan and the Spanish homologation of a refinancing agreement (homologación judicial de un acu- erdo de financiación). KEYWORDS: restructuring, Brexit, scheme of arrangement, restructuring plan, homologation, centre of main interest, insolvency, creditors, challenges. TABLE OF CONTENTS: I. INTRODUCTION. II. RESTRUCTURING TOOLS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM. 1. SCHEME OF ARRANGEMENT. 1.1. Main features. 1.2. General process. 1.3. Key considerations. 1.4. Application of scheme of arrangements by Spanish companies. 2. RESTRUCTURING PLAN. 2.1. Main features. 2.2. Com- parison with the English scheme of arrangement. III. DIFFERENCES OF UK RE- STRUCTURING TOOLS VERSUS SPANISH HOMOLOGATION. IV. CONCLUSIONS. V. REFERENCES. I. INTRODUCTION This article analyses restructuring tools available for Spanish companies in order to restructure their debt under the laws of both England and the Kingdom of Spain. In particular, this article sets out the following matters: (a) first, the main features of the English law scheme of arrangement and its use by Spanish companies so far; (b) second, the main features of the English law restructuring plan which came into force in 2020 and how this differs from a scheme of arrangement; and (c) third, a comparison between the English law scheme of arrangement and restructuring plan processes and the Span- ish homologation (homologación judicial de acuerdos de refinanciación) (“Ho- mologation”).
    [Show full text]
  • The New Cross-Border Arrangement Between Hong Kong and Mainland
    Client Alert The New Cross-Border Arrangement Between Hong Contact Information Kong and Mainland China on Insolvency and If you have any questions concerning this update, Restructuring Matters – A Comparison with please contact: Chapter 15 of the United States Bankruptcy Code Naomi Moore May 31, 2021 Partner [email protected] On May 14, 2021, the Department of Justice of the government of the Hong Kong Hong Kong +852 3694.3050 Special Administrative Region announced that the Secretary for Justice of Hong Kong and the Vice-president of the Supreme People’s Court (the “SPC”) had signed the Abid Qureshi Record of Meeting on Mutual Recognition of and Assistance to Bankruptcy Partner (Insolvency) Proceedings between the Courts of the Mainland and of the Hong Kong [email protected] Special Administrative Region (the “ROM”). The ROM concerns the commencement New York and implementation of the much anticipated cross-border mutual recognition, +1 212.872.8027 assistance and cooperation arrangement between Hong Kong and mainland China (the “Mainland”) in relation to corporate insolvency and restructuring matters (the Liz Osborne Partner “Cooperation Arrangement”). [email protected] To give effect to this milestone agreement, on the same day the SPC issued The London +44 20.7661.5347 Supreme People’s Court’s Opinion on Taking Forward a Pilot Measure in relation to the Recognition of and Assistance to Insolvency Proceedings in the Hong Kong Daniel Cohen Special Administrative Region (the “SPC Opinion”) and the Hong Kong government Partner issued a Practical Guide setting out the procedure for a Mainland administrator’s [email protected] application to the Courts of Hong Kong for recognition and assistance (the “Guide”).
    [Show full text]
  • NOTICE of NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL CONVENED MEETING of the SHAREHOLDERS of IBM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Day Tuesday Date March
    1 IBM India Private Limited No.12, Subramanya Arcade Bannerghatta Main Road Bangalore - 560029, India www.ibm.com/in NOTICE OF NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL CONVENED MEETING OF THE SHAREHOLDERS OF IBM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Day Tuesday Date March 16, 2021 Time 11:00 AM IST to 11:30 AM IST Place Hilton Bangalore Embassy Golflinks, Embassy Golf Links Business Park, Off Intermediate Ring Road, Bengaluru – 560071 Sr. Contents Page No No. 1 Notice of the National Company Law Tribunal convened meeting of the shareholders of IBM India Private Limited under the 2-4 provisions of Sections 230 – 232 of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Companies (Compromises, Arrangements and Amalgamations) Rules, 2016 2 Explanatory statement under Section 230(3) and 232(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Rule 6 of the Companies 5-17 (Compromises, Arrangements and Amalgamations) Rules, 2016 3 Annexure 1: Scheme of Arrangement between IBM India Private Limited and Grand Ocean Managed Infrastructure Services Private 18-45 Limited 4 Annexure 2: Share Entitlement Report dated January 13, 2021 issued by D and P India Advisory Services LLP 46-60 5 Annexure 3: Report adopted by the Board of Directors of IBM India Private Limited pursuant to the provisions of Section 61-63 232(2)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013 6 Annexure 4: Supplementary unaudited accounting statement of IBM India Private Limited for the six months period ended on 64-94 September 30, 2020 7 Proxy Form 95-96 8 Attendance Slip 97 9 Route map for the venue of the meeting 98 Registered Office: No.
    [Show full text]
  • Restructuring and Insolvency Regimes in South East Asia
    © Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP 1 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 3 PART I – Cambodia, Myanmar, Laos, Philippines and Vietnam 4 PART II – Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore 16 KEY CONTACTS 24 OUR REGIONAL OFFICES 25 DISCLAIMER 26 INTRODUCTION As business and commerce becomes increasingly cross-border in nature, it is important for businesses to have knowledge of restructuring and insolvency regimes of foreign jurisdictions. This is particularly relevant in the Southeast Asia region, given the close connection and links amongst the Southeast Asian states. In this publication, we take a broad look at the key areas of interest in the restructuring and insolvency regimes across the region. The comparative overview covers various differences and similarities in the respective restructuring and insolvency frameworks in these jurisdictions. Rajah & Tann Asia, as a regional network of law firms, has an established presence across Southeast Asia. Our regional offices have the requisite restructuring and insolvency expertise to assist with your queries and restructuring and insolvency needs across these jurisdictions. This publication is up to date as of September 2020. © Rajah & Tann Asia 3 PART I – Cambodia, Myanmar, Laos, Philippines and Vietnam Areas Cambodia Laos Myanmar Philippines Vietnam Rehabilitation A plan of compromise Upon the Court Rehabilitation Court-supervised Court-convened and can be proposed by accepting the petition process can be voluntary rehabilitation Creditors’ Meeting Restructuring the debtor, the or request for initiated (i) voluntarily (court administration). (court administration). Regime administrator or a adjudication and by the company; (ii) creditor (court declaration of by a secured creditor Court-supervised administration). bankruptcy, the debtor who holds security involuntary may apply for Court over all or majority of rehabilitation (court A plan of compromise sanctioned mediation.
    [Show full text]
  • English Schemes of Arrangement: Points to Note from a Recent Example
    ALERT MEMORANDUM English Schemes of Arrangement: Points to Note From a Recent Example March 5, 2018 If you have any questions concerning this memorandum, please reach out to your regular firm contact or the Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP recently following authors represented Far-Eastern Shipping Company plc, a LONDON public company incorporated in Russia, and certain of Andrew Shutter +44 207 614 2273 its affiliates in their restructuring of over USD 1 billion [email protected] of debt. Part of the restructuring involved the Polina Lyadnova negotiation of a compromise arrangement with certain +44 207 614 2355 [email protected] noteholders under two series of EU listed U.S. dollar- Bree Morgan-Davies denominated Eurobonds with trust deeds governed by +44 207 614 2223 English law. The compromise was implemented by way [email protected] of an English law scheme of arrangement which was Alessandro S. Forzani +44 207 614 2291 convened with the permission of the High Court of [email protected] Justice in October 2017 and sanctioned in November 2017. This memorandum provides an insight on a number of issues that were explored at the convening and sanction hearings. Of particular note was the court’s consideration of the interplay between the EU Judgments Regulation and EU Insolvency Regulation. clearygottlieb.com © Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, 2018. All rights reserved. This memorandum was prepared as a service to clients and other friends of Cleary Gottlieb to report on recent developments that may be of interest to them. The information in it is therefore general, and should not be considered or relied on as legal advice.
    [Show full text]