Offshore Litigation

Blog

Offshore Litigation

Contributors

Jonathan Addo
Jonathan Addo
  • Jonathan Addo

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Jeremy Child
Jeremy Child
  • Jeremy Child

  • Partner
  • London
Julie Engwirda
Julie Engwirda
  • Julie Engwirda

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Peter Ferrer
Peter Ferrer
  • Peter Ferrer

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Claire Goldstein
Claire Goldstein
  • Claire Goldstein

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Hazel-Ann Hannaway
Hazel-Ann Hannaway
  • Hazel-Ann Hannaway

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Nick Hoffman
Nick Hoffman
  • Nick Hoffman

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Andrew Johnstone
Andrew Johnstone
  • Andrew Johnstone

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Paula Kay
Paula Kay
  • Paula Kay

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Phillip Kite
Phillip Kite
  • Phillip Kite

  • Partner
  • London
Vicky Lord
Vicky Lord
  • Vicky Lord

  • Partner
  • Shanghai
Paul Madden
Paul Madden
  • Paul Madden

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Henry Mander
Henry Mander
  • Henry Mander

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Ian Mann
Ian Mann
  • Ian Mann

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
William Peake
William Peake
  • William Peake

  • Partner
  • London
Lorinda Peasland
Lorinda Peasland
  • Lorinda Peasland

  • Consultant
  • Hong Kong
Chai Ridgers
Chai Ridgers
  • Chai Ridgers

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Nicola Roberts
Nicola Roberts
  • Nicola Roberts

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
  • Singapore
Paul Smith
Paul Smith
  • Paul Smith

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Andrew Thorp
Andrew Thorp
  • Andrew Thorp

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Jessica Williams
Jessica Williams
  • Jessica Williams

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Jayson Wood
Jayson Wood
  • Jayson Wood

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands

Differences in rights do not necessarily fracture a class

In the recent case of Re MAB Leasing Limited in the High Court of England and Wales, MAB Leasing Limited (the Company) applied to the Court for an order to convene a meeting of creditors to approve a scheme of arrangement. The Company, incorporated in Malaysia, was part of the group which operated Malaysian Airlines. However, as it was liable to be wound up in England and Wales as an overseas company, the Court had jurisdiction over it to sanction a scheme of arrangement.

The Company leased aircrafts under 52 lease agreements which were all governed by English law, (satisfying the “sufficient connection” test as a matter of English law) and the scheme creditors were the lessors under those agreements.

The scheme provided creditors with four options, each provided a better return than in the event of the Company’s liquidation. 

In each of the options, the rent was to be set by reference to the market rates, which differed between the age and type of the aircrafts leased pursuant to each agreement. Accordingly, the amount of rent to be offered under the new terms would differ between creditors. The issue was whether these creditors could still be treated as being in the same class.

Whilst each creditor may end up with different rights, this did not fracture the class. In relation to the rights conferred under the scheme, each creditor was given precisely the same right to choose between the four options. The Court held that there was more that united the creditors than divided them and the differences did not fracture the class because:

  • The Company undertook an analysis of the differential for each of the leases which did not show extreme variations.
  • Given the extremely small dividend in the liquidation, the difference in the actual amount that would be recovered in liquidation as between two different lessors was de minimis.
  • Each creditor had the option to terminate the lease, recover its aircraft and receive a payment calculated by reference to its contractual entitlement. That was precisely what it would get in the Company’s liquidation.

The Court also considered whether the Aircraft Protocol to the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment signed at Cape Town and its associated regulations (Regulations) would impose any restriction on the Court’s power to sanction the scheme. The key point was whether the scheme was an insolvency proceeding within the meaning of the Regulations.

The Court noted that it was a point which could only be taken by a creditor who did not consent to the restructuring, no such creditor raised this as an objection and it was possible that all creditors would ultimately consent to the scheme. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the potential applicability of the Regulations was not an obvious blot on the scheme which would necessitate the Court refusing to sanction the scheme. The Court made an order convening a single class of creditors.

Schemes of arrangement are regularly considered by offshore Courts and this decision, which sheds helpful light on the composition of class, will be persuasive in those jurisdictions.

Differences in rights do not necessarily fracture a class

Leave A Comment