‘On the 28 March 2020, the Department for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy announced a series of insolvency legislation reforms including a new court based restructing tool modelled on the Scheme of Arrangement and a short business moratorium to protect companies facing the prospect of insolvency as a result of the Covid-19 crisis.’
3 Hare Court, 20th April 2020
Source: www.3harecourt.com
‘A scheme of arrangement cannot compel a landlord to accept a surrender of a lease because this would interfere with the landlord’s proprietary rights, the High Court in England has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 23rd January 2020
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
In re APCOA Parking Holdings GmbH and others [2014] EWHC 3849 (Ch); [2014] WLR (D) 499
‘The court had jurisdiction to sanction a scheme of arrangement pursuant to Part 26 of the Companies Act 2006 where, pursuant to a change of law clause in a facilities agreement governing the indebtedness of the scheme companies, a change of governing law to English law had been effected, even though the parties were incorporated in another jurisdiction and had COMI in another jurisdiction. The change of law was valid even where the original choice of law was the foundation for access to the processes and provisions of the new law chosen and those processes and provisions enabled the same parties as objected to the change of law to be placed under compulsion to accept some further change in their existing contractual rights.’
WLR Daily, 19th November 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
In re Rodenstock GmbH [2011] EWHC 1104; [2011] WLR (D) 150
“Neither Council Regulation (EC) No 3046/2000 on insolvency proceedings (‘the Insolvency Regulation’) nor Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (‘the Judgments Regulation’) had narrowed the court’s jurisdiction in relation to the sanctioning of schemes of arrangement, by impacting restrictively on the circumstances when a company was ‘liable to be wound up’.”
WLR Daily, 6th May 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“The court had no jurisdiction under Pt 26 of the Companies Act 2006 to sanction a scheme of arrangement which extended to the release of rights over property held by the company under a trust since it did not constitute a compromise or arrangement between the company and its creditors within s 899 of the 2006 Act.”
WLR Daily, 10th November 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“The court had no jurisdiction under Pt 26 of the Companies Act 2006 to sanction, so as to make binding on dissentients, a scheme of arrangement which had as its purpose the distribution of property held by a company on trust.”
WLR Daily, 26th August 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case is fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
© Inner Temple Library 2024