UK: Corporate Restructuring and Insolvency: Administration Pursuant to Section 8 of the Insolvency Act 1986: Two Recent Cases of Interest to the US

Last Updated: 21 May 2003

The Meaning of Insolvency — A Message to US High-Yield Investors and Acquirers of Distressed Debt in Europe

In Re Colt Telecom Group Plc [2002] EWHC 2815, the English Court has sent a clear message to US high-yield investors and acquirers of distressed debt that when considering the meaning of insolvency for the purposes of an English administration, it will not tolerate "shaky, tentative and speculative" arguments as to the financial health of companies.

Colt carried out business through its trading subsidiaries. Its business comprised the provision of advance telecommunications services to corporate and government customers across Europe (totalling £2.6 billion as at 30 September 2002). Its assets consisted primarily of cash held by it and investments in its subsidiaries comprising shareholdings in, and long term funding to, those subsidiaries. Its liabilities consisted principally of its indebtedness under 9 series of Notes issued by it between 1996 and 1999. Its business had also been funded by raising equity capital totalling more than £2 billion, the most recent being approximately £500 million in December 2001.

The Petitioners, Highberry Limited (an English company incorporated in November 2001) and its affiliate Highberry LLC (a Delaware Corporation incorporated in September 2002) were hedge funds which formed part of the US Elliott Associates group, specialising in the taking of short positions in company shares and acquiring debt securities at a discount in the hope of a rise in price.

At the time of the Petition, Highberry held approximately 7% in value of the Notes. There was no indication of any support for the Petition from the holders of the remaining 93%.

The Petition was considered to be unusual in that Highberry’s principal argument was that Colt was or was likely to become insolvent notwithstanding that it was a constituent member of FTSE mid-250 index and had a market capitalisation of £550 million, not to mention its net assets of £977 million. In addition, the various series of Notes issued by Colt were not in default and did not fall for repayment until the period 2005 to 2009. In their proposals, Highberry relied upon a dramatic fall in the Colt share price since the year 2000 and its substantial operating losses and negative cash-flows.

The object of the proposed administration was purportedly to achieve a restructuring through a transfer of value of the company from the shareholders to the bondholders either by a debt for equity conversion or by payment out of Colt’s cash or both. Highberry had made an initial approach to Colt suggesting a 100% payment of the face value of the Notes, even though repayment of capital was some years away and Highberry had obviously bought the Notes at a discount. The Court considered that Highberry was "after a large and quick profit" and it was accepted that companies associated with the Elliott group had taken short positions in the shares of Colt.

Colt submitted that it believed the Petition to be part of a strategy to make a speculative profit from Highberry’s acquisition of Notes at a discounted price and also from their (or their affiliated companies’) short position in Colt’s shares and that Highberry was seeking to achieve the profit by forcing an unjustified transfer of value from shareholders to Note holders.

Highberry had previously brought a fair amount of pressure to bear upon Colt such as by sending letters to each Colt director at home threatening an investigation into the directors’ conduct and, by implication, wrongful trading proceedings.

Against that background, the Court had to determine six issues:

Must a Petitioner prove that the company is "likely to be unable to pay its debts" within section 8(1)(a) IA 1986, on a balance of probabilities or is it sufficient for it to prove that there is a real prospect of that being so? According to the Judge, the meaning of the word "likely" is in effect "more likely than not". In other words, where a Petitioner alleges that a company is likely to become unable to pay its debts, the Petitioner must show that this is more probable than not. A company should not be put into administration where there is only a "real prospect" of insolvency, and the Judge did not consider in this case that insolvency had been proved on the "real prospect" test in any event. The Judge stated: "To put a company into administration is a serious matter. Creditors, as well as the company itself, can apply. To expose the company to all the expense, danger, and problems associated with administration is a serious matter. It is most unlikely that Parliament intended this when there was only a real prospect of insolvency rather than where insolvency was more probable than not".

Is the ability to present a Petition forbidden by the "no action" clause under the terms of the Notes and their associated Indenture - a question of New York Law? Clause 6.6 of the Indenture stated: "A holder may not pursue any remedy with respect to this Indenture or the Notes…". Each side produced an expert witness on New York Law, who both agreed that there was no direct New York authority in point. Highberry’s expert witness contended that the no action clause had no application prior to an event of default and in any event only applied to "contractual claims", being those based on the terms of the Indenture or Notes and not claims such as for the appointment of a Receiver or the equivalent of an Administrator.

However, the Court preferred the evidence of Colt’s expert witness for various reasons:

  • Colt’s expert had very considerable practical experience of the issue of bonds, unlike Highberry’s witness;
  • The suggestion that the clause did not apply to pre-Event of Default situations produced an illogicality — freedom for all to act at a time when the situation is not so serious as a default, but a restriction when there is a default. This made no commercial sense. The Court could see no rational purpose for individual bondholders being able to rock the boat before default but not after.
  • In addition, there was no rational purpose in limiting the bar to "contractual claims". If it were so limited then individuals could undermine the policy by applying for a Receiver or the sort of action taken in this case.

Even if the no action clause is effective as a matter of New York law, does English law public policy override its effect? The Court found this submission and its potential effect startling. It would mean that English companies could not readily issue bonds with no-action clauses; whatever the terms of the bond, and whether pre or post default, they would be exposed to the potentiality of a single bondholder bringing an administration Petition. It was not self-apparent why the clause should be overridden by public policy. Such bonds were regarded as enforceable under New York law with no harm to public policy.

In essence, Highberry argued that the principle that the right of a contributory to petition cannot be abrogated or restricted by provisions in the Memorandum or Articles of the Company, should be extended to contracts made by companies with their Creditors.

The Court rejected Highberry’s argument. The clause did not fetter the rights of the Company but was merely restricted to the creditors’ rights created by contract and not statute. The application of a rule of the law of a foreign country may only be refused if such application is manifestly incompatible with English public policy. Even if the English Court took the view that no action clauses were invalid if governed by English law, they did not have such an inherent vice that English law would not respect a foreign law which permitted such clauses.

Is Colt cash-flow insolvent? Highberry argued that there was no risk of cash-flow insolvency until 2006. But, by then, some of the capital due on the Notes would be repayable and the company would not, if things carried on as they had, have the ability to pay. In particular, it was not clear whether the company would be generating enough cash-flow from its assets. Nor was it clear that anybody would be willing to re-finance the company in 2006.

The Court was not impressed with this argument and described it as "a shaky, tentative, and speculative peering into the middle-distance", and formed no basis for placing the company into administration.

Balance Sheet Insolvency. This was Highberry’s primary allegation, based upon the application of Financial Reporting Standard 11 - impairment of fixed assets and goodwill. In essence, FRS 11 deals with the valuation over a long term of an asset in use.

A key element of the necessary analysis comprised the calculation by discounting of the expected future cash-flows of the asset in question. A discount rate should be an estimate of the rate that the market would expect on an equally risky investment. Estimates of the market rate may be made by a variety of means including reference to the current weighted average cost of capital (WACC).

The Court held that the proposed administrator had calculated WACC simply by reliance on the bond price, despite that price itself depending on the promised yield to redemption, general yields in the market, and a factor representing the risk of default. Such reliance upon an instantaneous bond price alone was not a rational fair way of valuing in accordance with FRS 11, and the 24% WACC suggested by the proposed administrator was rejected by the Court without hesitation. It followed that the company was not balance sheet insolvent.

Discretion. On the basis of the above findings, the Court considered that it did not have jurisdiction to put Colt into administration. There had never been any substance whatsoever in the Petition and it should never have been launched. If the Court were wrong however, the Judge considered that he would not exercise his discretion in any event for various reasons, including:

  • The making of the administration Order would be an event of default under the terms of the Indenture which would mean that all of the debt was repayable immediately. That would destroy the entire business rather than serve the statutory purpose of the survival of the company and the whole or part of its undertaking;
  • The Petition had very little support if at all;
  • It was premature. There was no suggestion of urgency given the concession that creditors would not have to be paid until at least 2006;
  • There was no indication that an administrator with knowledge of the telecoms business could improve the current specialised management and it would almost certainly stop the business in its tracks;
  • The administration Order would simply add to the company’s costs, if its business survived.

In the course of the judgment, the Court addressed the nature of the evidence given by the proposed administrator, as author of the report prepared pursuant to Rule 2.2 of the Insolvency Act 1986. The Judge stated that:

  • Part 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules in respect of expert evidence governed expert opinion evidence given in the Rule 2.2 report;
  • Where a Petition is likely to be contested, the author of the report ought to re-read the Rules and the Code governing expert evidence before writing the report;
  • Where the Petition is likely to be contested, the insolvency practitioner asked to give evidence to support such a case should not propose himself as the administrator. This did not apply, however, to Petitions initiated by directors, notwithstanding that there is a small conflict of interest in those cases;
  • Where a Petition is contested, the author of the Rule 2.2 report has a direct interest in the outcome of the proceedings, and he should make an express and full statement of this fact in the report, since the existence of a conflict has an effect on the weight to be attached to the evidence in the report;
  • Where evidence in support of a Petitioner’s opinion evidence is not within the expertise of an insolvency practitioner, individuals who are "true experts" should give evidence. The proposed administrator in this case appeared to set himself up as the relevant expert valuer for the purposes of FRS 11, when it transpired that he had no expertise whatsoever in FRS 11. Saying, "I know a man who knows and he has explained it to me", is not expert evidence.

Conclusion. The judgment makes clear that given the serious consequences of administration, the Court will not tolerate speculative arguments about a company’s future financial health and therefore whether one of the purposes of administration could possibly be achieved.

Jurisdiction to Make an Administration Order in Respect of a US Company under the EC Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings

In Re BRAC-Rent-a-Car International Inc [2003] EWHC Ch 128, the English Court held that a company incorporated in Delaware could have its "centre of main interests" in England and accordingly be placed into administration pursuant

to the EC Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings.

Although the company was incorporated in Delaware, it had never traded in the US. Its operations were conducted almost entirely in the UK. Until a short time before the judgment, it was part of the Budget group and its business entailed managing the European, Middle Eastern and African operations formerly carried on by the Budget group.

The company traded from an address in England and for a long time had been registered under the English Companies Acts as an oversea company. It had no employees in the UK, and all its employees worked in England with contracts of employment governed by English law, apart from a small number in a branch office in Switzerland. Its trading activities were carried on by way of contracts governed by English law with subsidiaries and franchisees.

Along with other members or former members of the Budget group, the company was in Chapter 11 administration in the US. However, since the Chapter 11 moratorium effect as regards creditors is not directly effective in the UK, it was considered that an administration order by way of protection against creditors in England was necessary. One judgment creditor with the benefit of an Italian arbitration award in Italy for a sum exceeding £1.1 million, had obtained an interim charging order over property of the company.

EC Council Regulation 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on Insolvency Proceedings ("the Regulation") has direct effect in all of the EU member states as of 31 May 2002. Nevertheless, the English Insolvency Act 1986 was amended in various respects including Section 8(7) to the following effect:

"In this Part a reference to a company includes reference to a company in relation to which an administration order may be made by virtue of article 3 of the EC regulation".

The question of whether the English Court had jurisdiction to make an administration order in relation to the US company turned on article 3, paragraphs 1 and 2, which state:

"1. The courts of the Member State within the territory of which the centre of a debtor’s main interests is situated shall have jurisdiction to open insolvency proceedings. In the case of a company or legal person, the place with the registered office shall be presumed to be the centre of its main interests in the absence of proof to the contrary.

2. Where the centre of a debtor’s main interests is situated within the territory of a Member State, the courts of another Member State shall have jurisdiction to open insolvency proceedings against that debtor only if he possesses an establishment within the territory or that other Member State. The effects of those proceedings shall be restricted to the assets of the debtor situated in the territory of the latter Member State."

According to recital (12) of the Regulation, the Regulation enables the main insolvency proceedings to be opened in a Member State where the debtor has his centre of main interests.

There is no definition of "centre of a debtor’s main interests" in the Regulation, apart from the rebuttable presumption in article 3.1, but the meaning of the phrase is merely illuminated by recital (13) which states: the " ‘centre of main interests’ should correspond to the place where the debtor conducts the administration of his interests on a regular basis and is therefore ascertainable by third parties".

Recital (14) states: "this regulation applies only to proceedings where the centre of the debtor’s main interests is located in the Community".

In essence, none of the other articles of the Regulation assist in determining the question whether debtors in relation to whom the insolvency proceedings governed by the Regulation may be taken are limited to those incorporated in the Community or not. The only test stated in the Regulation was that of the location of the centre of a debtor’s main interests.

Other EU legislation, such as the Eleventh Company Law Directive 89/666/EEC, extended to companies incorporated outside the EU. In this particular case the Company was registered as a branch under Section 690A of the Companies Act 1985, which itself gave effect to the relevant provision of the Eleventh Company Law Directive.

Furthermore, in relation to the Brussels Convention (now replaced by Regulation 44/2001) the Court of Appeal in The Deichland [1990] 1 QB 361, held that a company incorporated in Panama but in relation to which central management and control was exercised in Germany, had its "seat" in Germany. On that basis the Brussels Convention applied, and the company was entitled to insist on being sued in the Courts of its domicile, being another contracting State rather than in England. The Court of Appeal was therefore persuaded that Community legislation was by no means necessarily limited to legal persons incorporated in a Member State.

In all the circumstances, the Court in the BRAC-Renta-Car case accepted that the Regulation gave jurisdiction to the Court of a Member State to open insolvency proceedings in relation to a company incorporated outside the EU if the centre of the company’s main interests was in that Member State. If it had been intended that, as regards legal persons, only debtors incorporated in the relevant Member States should be affected by the Regulation, it would have been easy to say so. If such a limitation were intended, it was surprising that it did not appear at all in the 33 discursive recitals to the Regulation, not to mention the substantive provisions of the Regulation.

Even on a purposive interpretation, the Court considered that to read the Regulation as being limited (as regards legal persons) to debtors incorporated in any of the Member States, would prevent the Regulation from achieving some of the purposes described in the recitals and would leave it open to avoidance by means of, for example, forum shopping among the Member States.

Accordingly, the Regulation did give the Courts of Member States jurisdiction to open insolvency proceedings in relation to a corporate debtor incorporated in Delaware, if the centre of the debtor’s main interests was within that Member State, as was the case in this instance.

Comment. The case is widely considered to be correct. However, its use is likely to be of more relevance to off-shore companies with operations in the UK, rather than US companies. Today, most US groups which operate in the EU, will incorporate in Europe. In this particular case, Budget itself was incorporated in the 1960s, and the structure of the business was probably a throw-back to that time. Therefore, the significance of the case probably goes no wider than that a wide variety of commentators thought that the Regulation could only apply to companies incorporated in another Member State. Whilst it has been hailed as giving the Regulation global reach and opening up the availability of administration for the UK operations of US companies, this particular US company had its centre of main interests in the UK, and that simply is the test going forward.

The content of this article does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on in that way. Specific advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

©2003 Jones Day Gouldens. All rights reserved.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

 
In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.