The ruling focused on whether dissenting shareholders were out of the money, as claimed by the creditors in favour of the plan. If they were not, then they had a genuine economic interest in the company and the impact of the most likely alternative course of action did not need to be immediately quantifiable to determine whether or not the dissenting creditors would be any worse off.
- Cross-class cram-down process requires satisfaction of both threshold conditions
- Application of no worse off test requires consideration of whether dissenting creditors are out of the money
- Relevant alternative is crucial to determining whether creditors have a genuine economic interest
Oil-extractor Hurricane Energy had issued unsecured, unguaranteed bon…
Read the full article at: https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/legal-updates/court-refuses-sanction-part-26a-restructuring-plan