Chase Cambria
  • Log in
  • Not a member yet?
go
  • Contact
  • Webmail
  • Archive
 
  • Home
  • Overview
  • Journal Issues
  • Subscriptions
  • Editorial Board
  • Author Guidelines

International Corporate Rescue

Journal Issues

  • Vol 1 (2004)
  • Vol 2 (2005)
  • Vol 3 (2006)
  • Vol 4 (2007)
  • Vol 5 (2008)
  • Vol 6 (2009)
  • Vol 7 (2010)
  • Vol 8 (2011)
  • Vol 9 (2012)
  • Vol 10 (2013)
  • Vol 11 (2014)
  • Vol 12 (2015)
  • Vol 13 (2016)
  • Vol 14 (2017)
  • Vol 15 (2018)
  • Vol 16 (2019)
  • Vol 17 (2020)
  • Vol 18 (2021)
  • Vol 19 (2022)
  • Vol 20 (2023)
  • Vol 21 (2024)
  •         Issue 1
  •         Issue 2
  •         Issue 3
  •         Issue 4
  •         Issue 5
  •         Issue 6
  • Vol 22 (2025)

Vol 21 (2024) - Issue 4

Article preview

A Look at Re Nasmyth Group Limited (Re Companies Act 2006) [2023] EWHC 988 (Ch)

Sunay Radia, Partner, and Alexander Andronikou, Associate, McDermott Will & Emery UK LLP, London, UK

Synopsis
Re Nasmyth Group Limited is the first case in England & Wales in which the Court did not sanction a proposed restructuring plan under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 where there was a dissenting creditor class but the conditions for the Court to exercise its discretion to effect a cross-class cram down were satisfied.
The Court highlighted that there is no presumption in favour of sanction because such conditions were satisfied and noted there were certain factors that the Court should consider when exercising its discretion. Specific factors that were referred to include the arguments of dissenting creditors and whether there is any blot or defect in the restructuring plan which may hinder its operational effectiveness. In consideration of the arguments submitted by the dissenting creditors (in particular, the dissenting sole referential creditor, HMRC) the Court found inter alia that the proposed restructuring plan was reliant upon the plan company and its subsidiaries agreeing time-to-pay rrangements with HMRC after its sanction. Accordingly, the plan company’s failure to agree such time-to-pay arrangements prior to putting forward the restructuring plan effectively acted as a roadblock (or blot) that prevented the restructuring plan taking effect in the manner in which the plan company and its creditors intended and so it was not sanctioned.

Buy this article
Get instant access to this article for only EUR 55 / USD 60 / GBP 45
Buy this issue
Get instant access to this issue for only EUR 175 / USD 230 / GBP 155
Buy annual subscription
Subscribe to the journal and recieve a hardcopy for
EUR 730 / USD 890 / GBP 560
If you are already a subscriber
log In here

International Corporate Rescue

"International Corporate Rescue is the ultimate legal and commercial guide through the maze of complex cross border insolvency and restructuring issues."

William Q Derrough, Managing Director and Co-head of Recapitalization & Restructuring Group, Moelis & Company, New York

 

 

Copyright 2006 Chase Cambria Company (Publishing) Limited. All rights reserved.