The European High Yield Association has announced refinements to its proposals to the Treasury on insolvency law reform.

Its original submission in April 2007 identified perceived shortcomings of the Enterprise Act reforms:

". . . the administration procedure has not been widely used in distressed situations and, more generally, statutory processes have been avoided.

We believe this occurs for the following reasons:

• despite the best efforts of those in government and elsewhere, administrations and Company Voluntary Arrangements (CVAs) are still perceived in the UK as reflecting corporate failure rather than rescue, which depresses confidence in the business and enterprise value;
• the ability of suppliers and customers to abandon their contracts with the distressed company if it makes a formal insolvency filing discourages filing, and where filing does ultimately occur, the ability to cancel contracts destroys the value of the business; and
• difficulties in obtaining funding in administration impair the company's ability to trade through the proceeding."

The first point above is uncontroversial; a direct remedy to the second by a simple extension of the administration and small CVA moratoria enjoys the support of the City of London Law Society (here), amongst others; and the third point refers to DIP funding (although some might argue that administration is inimical to the concept of debtor in posession).

Under a heading "Facilitating 'out-of-court' restructurings in the UK" then come three suggestions leading to "a call for a court supervised restructuring process":

• An all-encompassing stay on actions should be available to prevent value destruction as this is currently seen as an inevitable consequence of filing for insolvency in the UK. In other jurisdictions, notably the US and France, contractual termination provisions are not enforceable. The current stay deployed by English law does not go far enough in protecting failing businesses and allows customers and suppliers to terminate contractual relations just when their continued commitment is most crucial to the rescue.
• A framework should be created for fast judicial resolution of valuation disputes in restructurings, short of administration proceedings. This will enable practise and precedent to develop in restructuring valuations, thus providing stakeholders with relative certainty of outcome, whilst avoiding the value loss that arises through administration.
• Creditors or shareholders with no economic interest in the revalued enterprise should not be able to block restructurings or force full insolvency proceedings. A mechanism is needed to deal fully with 'out of the money' claims in restructurings.

It is these lightly sketched but far-reaching proposals that are now refined and extended - and will be considered in a subsequent post.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In 2003 the Enterprise Act made several major changes to insolvency law, including dropping the preferential status of the main government departments and the creation, through Section 176A of the Insolvency Act 1986, of a 'prescribed part'. This was done in an attempt to improve the chances of unsecured creditors receiving some return in 'larger' liquidations. It has taken until now to answer the question of whether a floating charge holder who experiences a shortfall on their secured debt, which would fall to be unsecured, can share in the 'prescribed part', discussed in a previous post here.

In a judgement handed down by the Birmingham High Court recently in the Permacell Finesse case, HHJ Purle QC decided that floating charge holders should not have a further crack of the whip by sharing in the prescribed part.

The Judge made his views abundantly clear, saying:

'The prohibition on distributing the prescribed part to a floating charge holder is in my judgment absolute'.

The Judge seems to have given effect to what he believes was parliament's intention at the time, namely to give banks and other floating charge holders the benefit of increased realisations through the abolition of Crown preference without having a detrimental effect on the unsecured creditors' distribution prospects.

The case will probably come as no surprise to bankers and other institutional floating charge holders as it is a case of quid pro quo.

However, the decision presumably comes as another blow to the charge holder in Permacell, coming soon after the Employment Appeals Tribunal made a 'protective award' of 90 days pay to employees because the employees were not properly consulted about their proposed redundancies under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

The Act requires that employees be consulted even in an insolvency situation where there can be only one outcome. And claims under a protective award rank preferentially, i.e. before the floating charge. Follow this link to the EAT decision: Evans & Others -v- Permacell Finesse Limited (In Administration).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (7)
• Trackbacks (1)

The 21st century has seen the firm establishment of a rescue culture in the UK, exemplified by the successful establishment of the Society of Turnaround Professionals and the coming into force of the corporate insolvency provisions of the Enterprise Act 2002 in September 2003.

The legislative changes have served to lower entry barriers to insolvency proceedings in terms of cost and perception, the latter through reducing the "stigma of bankruptcy". In particular, the statutory objectives of administration, which has been re-established as the jurisdictionís principal non-terminal insolvency procedure, are now defined with "rescuing the company as a going concern" as the first priority. Solutions like those in the case studies below will now be easier to implement (if not necessarily to conceive or manage), making it all the more vital to consult an experienced and rescue-oriented insolvency practitioner at an early stage. Each case study is factual and I was the administrator and/or the company's advisor.

In Case Study 1, early realisation that the groupís cost reductions had lagged the industry-wide market collapse was a key factor, enabling the (nevertheless rapid) formulation and execution of a refinancing and balance sheet restructuring plan. Had this company not been caught in time it would have hit the buffers really hard ñ speed of reaction was of the essence.

Case Study 2 was a relatively healthy core business being turned around successfully. However, the reverse premium that would have been required to effect a trade sale of the two most seriously underperforming subsidiaries would have brought it down. Selling the subsidiary businesses and assets as going concerns through a formal insolvency process was anathema to the incumbent management, but we showed them the value of an insolvency tool in the right hands. Here it both avoided a potentially terminal cash drain and protected the core business from the likely counter-claims of group-wide customers if the subsidiariesí businesses had not continued.

Case Study 3 is the most innovative. The cash-rich quoted shell with a positive balance sheet had contingent liabilities that the Court was persuaded (unlike in Colt Telecom) were more likely than not to render the company unable to pay its debts as they fell due. However, the very use of a formal insolvency procedure prompted the crystallisation of many of those contingencies such that there was a value to shareholders - the shares were relisted on return of the company to the directors at six time the price at which they were suspended on administration.

In each of these cases a turnaround manager not well-versed in the benefits of formal insolvency procedures might have continued to "think positive", avoiding insolvency at the risk of missing the opportunity of a successful rescue. I believe that a balanced mix of turnaround and insolvency skills and an ability to innovate are most likely to deliver optimal solutions to the stakeholders of companies in financial distress.

• Case Study 1

Antal International Limited ñ £20m turnover global recruitment business
Problem: Dramatic market contraction
Solution: Bank debt replaced by invoice financing. Invoice financiers would only fund with administrators controlling company. Administration allowed more cost cutting and "breathing space". Subsequent Company Voluntary Arrangement eliminated excess creditors and restored profitability and cash generation.
Other Features: Paramount distinguished (administrator did not automatically adopt employment contracts after 14 days). European Insolvency Regulations tested in action.

• Case Study 2

£10m turnover engineering business
Problem: Restructured, ongoing turnaround, 2 subsidiaries draining cash.
Solution: Subsidiariesí administrative receivership. Going concern sales of their businesses and assets. Remaining group freed of cost, risk and contingent liabilities.
Other Features: Group pension fund issues required preparation for parent company administration to precipitate commercial settlement on the steps of the Court.

• Case Study 3

PNC Telecom plc ñ £60m turnover AIM-listed former mobile retail and fixed line telephone company.
Problem: Contingencies remaining after sale of operating businesses/subsidiaries precluded use of the shell as a vehicle for a reverse takeover or distribution to shareholders via a membersí voluntary liquidation.
Solution: Administration order prompted landlords to accept replacement obligations from the business purchaser and enabled litigation contingencies to be reduced. Administration ended after 7 months and company relisted at 6 times the price at which the shares were suspended on the date of administration.
Other Features: s236 Insolvency Act applications allowed the administrator to obtain information about the companyís affairs more quickly and cheaply than could the turnaround managers.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks