Our knowledge resources reflect the breadth and depth of our expertise, our insight into the issues which matter to your business, and our understanding of the markets in which you operate.
Leading independent law firm Travers Smith LLP has announced the hire of Mandip Englund as a Restructuring & Insolvency partner in the Finance team, further strengthening its Restructuring & Insolvency practice.
Travers Smith LLP has advised established carpet and flooring retailer Carpetright and its administrators on the pre-pack administration sale of its business and certain of its assets to CWHP Limited, part of the Tapi group.
Judgment was handed down last week on the substantial directors' duties and wrongful trading claims brought against former directors of various BHS companies[1]. The liquidators of those companies were successful in arguing that the directors were liable for wrongful trading (albeit at the latest date of six possible dates argued) and were also successful in bringing the first ever claim for "misfeasance trading"[2]. Whilst the judgment is very fact specific, it is an interesting analysis of so-called "insolvency-deepening" activity and shareholder value extraction. Moreover, it is a salient reminder to directors of their duties where they are operating in the zone of insolvency.
Travers Smith LLP has advised the owner of Specialist Aviation Services Ltd (SAS), a UK-based supplier of critical air ambulance services, on the sale of its business and assets out of administration to AIM-listed Gama Aviation plc.
Fraudulent trading is both a civil and criminal offence. The recent judgment of the High Court in Bouchier v Booth provided a helpful reminder of the principles that a Court will apply when considering whether directors have acted in a manner that constitutes fraudulent trading and the high threshold for proving fraudulent conduct.
The Court of Appeal has ruled that the previous decision of the High Court to sanction a restructuring plan ("Plan") that had been proposed by the Adler Group ("Adler") should be set aside. The decision marks the first appeal in relation to a restructuring plan under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 ("Companies Act") and the decision offers clarity on the approach to restructuring plans, particularly when considering issues of "fairness".
The Supreme Court has provided welcome clarity for insolvency practitioners in confirming that administrators of a company appointed pursuant to the Insolvency Act 1986 ("IA 1986") will not be criminally liable for a failure by the company to comply with redundancy notification requirements.
We are increasingly seeing requests from borrowers to carve-out assets from the scope of a lender's otherwise all asset English security package. Whilst there may be commercially sensible reasons for this request, lenders should be aware of the potential impact on their enforcement rights before agreeing to this.
Since the introduction of the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA) and the creation of the new Part 26A restructuring plan procedure, questions have been raised about whether the cost of using such a procedure would restrict its use to larger, better capitalised companies.
Travers Smith LLP has advised long-standing client, SSP Group, on its acquisition of AMT Coffee from its administrators in an accelerated transaction.
In this briefing we explore the risk that a lender might renege (voluntarily or involuntarily) on its funding commitments. We touch on the different types of lender entities in the market currently and examine why there are often different reasons behind such a failure to fund.
In this podcast Jonathan Gilmour, Peter Hughes, John Lee and Adam Schnider consider the implications of the recent collapse of cryptocurrency exchange FTX. They discuss some of the key issues that could arise from the insolvency of FTX or other crypto investment firms more generally, including priority of claims, proprietary rights in crypto-assets, tracing and recovery of crypto-assets, and cross-border insolvency issues.
The long awaited Sequana Supreme Court judgment[1] has provided some welcome clarity around the duties of the directors of a company in the "twilight zone" – i.e. where the company is facing financial difficulties.
The Insolvency Service has recently published its interim report (the "Report") which considers the three permanent measures that were introduced pursuant to the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 ("CIGA"). For further details on the temporary and permanent measures introduced pursuant to CIGA, see our previous update.
Travers Smith LLP has advised longstanding client, the McColl's Group, on its restructuring negotiations with stakeholders and the recent sale of its business to Morrisons, which was transacted via an administration sale.
Travers Smith LLP has advised long-standing client Phoenix Equity Partners (Phoenix) and other selling shareholders on the sale of 1000heads Group Limited to Labelium Group (Labelium), a digital performance company backed by Charterhouse Capital Partners.
As outlined in our previous briefing note on the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020, a new restructuring tool was introduced in June 2020 in the form of the Part A1 free-standing moratorium (the "Moratorium"). The Moratorium was introduced with the intention of providing companies in financial distress breathing space to allow them to explore restructuring options whilst being protected from the majority of creditor action, similar to the protection afforded to a company in administration. A feature of the Moratorium is the appointment of an independent monitor.
The legislative protection for debtors against landlord action introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic is being unwound. As outlined in our previous briefing note on 20 September 2021, unlike other creditors, landlords currently remain restricted from presenting winding-up petitions in relation to amounts due under commercial leases or from exercising their forfeiture rights.
The High Court has dismissed a challenge to Caffe Nero's company voluntary arrangement (CVA) in Young v Nero Holdings Limited. The Applicant in the proceedings, Mr Young, was a landlord of premises let to the First Respondent, Nero Holdings Limited (the Company) and challenged the Company's CVA under s 6(1)(a) and (b) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the Act). Mr Young alleged that the Company's CVA was unfairly prejudicial to the rights of creditors and that the procedure and circumstances around the approval of the CVA were materially irregular.
Travers Smith LLP represents the joint nominees in relation to a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) that had been proposed by the directors of Caffè Nero's operating company, Nero Holdings Limited (the Company), on 12 November 2020.