Restructuring Plans and Chapter 11: A Transatlantic Perspective

January 2023

Reading Time : 1 min

When the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA) introduced the restructuring plan in England, comparisons with plans of reorganization under chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (U.S. Bankruptcy Code) were inevitable.

A rundown of the similarities between the two processes is easy: both are court-sanctioned and based on classes, with the ability to compromise claims and/or interests held by secured creditors, unsecured creditors and equity holders (including through cross-class cram down). In addition, neither interferes with directors’ powers of management (in the U.S., absent significant showings of mismanagement or fraud). Despite their similarities, there are some obvious differences: different voting thresholds, U.S. statutory authority to obtain debtor-inpossession (DIP) financing, the “absolute priority rule” in chapter 11, and the lack of a statutory automatic stay in England. Now, with the benefit of more than two and  a half years of learning on English restructuring plans, it is an opportune time to re-visit those initial comparisons. In this article, we will consider some of the key features of the English regime, including the experience from the case law to-date, how the developments in the English cases contrast with the position and approach under chapter 11, and the practical significance of those differences.

In the first part of our video series, London partner Liz Osborne and New York partner Abid Qureshi compare the cross-class cram down mechanisms available under each regime.

In the second part of our video series, partners David Botter in New York and Emma Simmonds and Richard Hornshaw in London compare some of the valuation and recovery aspects of the English restructuring plan and US chapter 11 process.

In our final video examining the key differences between US chapter 11 restructurings and the English restructuring plan, partners David Botter in New York and Emma Simmonds and Sam Brodie in London examine the company’s ability to operate once the restructuring procedure is underway.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

European Restructuring Insights

September 11, 2024

The majority of all 2023 EMEA restructurings involving an equitisation and/or a maturity extension required the provision of new money. While equitisation can solve for an over-leveraged capital structure, and maturity extensions can provide runway for business recovery and turnaround, those steps alone are often insufficient without there also being a contemporaneous solution for liquidity. This has been the experience on many of our recent matters, and arguably is a symptom of the covenant-lite debt documents which dominate the market, and which often don't default until there is a liquidity crunch.

...

Read More

European Restructuring Insights

April 13, 2023

On 28 March 2023, the UK Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation of HM Treasury (“OFSI”) issued the “Bond amendments and restructurings for non-Designated Persons” general licence (General Licence - INT/2023/2824812) (the “Bond Amendment GL”) under the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (the “UK Russia Sanctions Regulations”).

...

Read More

European Restructuring Insights

March 22, 2023

In this edition of the Restructuring Watch, we cover several significant developments in the world of corporate restructuring and insolvency. We examine the effective operation of the special resolution regime in relation to Silicon Valley Bank, draw out key takeaways from numerous recent restructuring plans, and discuss the most recent government report on the permanent reforms introduced by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020. We also explore a recent judgment in the Sova Capital special administration and take a deep dive into the long-awaited Sequana judgment.

...

Read More

European Restructuring Insights

January 10, 2023

Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, we have seen an extraordinary range of sanctions and export controls restrictions introduced by tens of countries worldwide. The current sanctions imposed on Russia by the United States (US), the United Kingdom (UK) and the European Union (EU) are unprecedented in both their scope and application, while Russia’s countersanction responses are similarly far-reaching and unprecedented. These sanctions restrictions, which vary by jurisdiction and continue to evolve, are impacting (and will continue to impact) restructuring transactions which we have been involved in, and navigating the resulting transactional complexities will be critical for the foreseeable future – particularly as we anticipate that further sanctions and export controls will be introduced as the war continues.

...

Read More

European Restructuring Insights

January 2023

When the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA) introduced the restructuring plan in England, comparisons with plans of reorganization under chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (U.S. Bankruptcy Code) were inevitable.

...

Read More

© 2024 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.