Offshore Litigation

Blog

Offshore Litigation

Contributors

Jonathan Addo
Jonathan Addo
  • Jonathan Addo

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

  • Partner
  • London
Stuart Cullen
Stuart Cullen
  • Stuart Cullen

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
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

Position Paper on Parallel Schemes of Arrangement: the Harneys “Schemario Rules”

Harneys has decided to release its March 2020 Position Paper on Parallel Schemes of Arrangement: the Schemario Rules. Download the PDF here.

What are Schemarios? Schemarios are “scheme-scenarios” which form governing rules to establish when a parallel scheme of arrangement is necessary. We believe that the Schemarios will be helpful to practitioners of cross-border restructuring around the world. Our Schemarios illustrate how the operation of the “rule in Gibbs” can be used to distinguish between cases where further steps (in particular, a parallel scheme of arrangement) are likely to be necessary to ensure the practical effectiveness of a cross-border restructuring and those cases where such steps may not strictly be necessary for that purpose.

You can listen to the 5 Schemario Rules on episode one of our restructuring podcast, R&I over Wi-Fi, published on 14 April 2021 featuring Ian Mann and Chai Ridgers.

Knowing when to initiate a parallel scheme of arrangement has become a hot topic of late. A scheme company will want to ensure that the compromises are effective not only in the Cayman Islands (as the jurisdiction of incorporation) but in other jurisdictions where its assets are located. The locus classicus on the issue is contained in: Re Drax Holdings [2004] 1 WLR 1049, which concerned parallel Cayman Islands, Jersey and English schemes in respect of Cayman and Jersey incorporated entities. As Lawrence Collins J (as he then was) explained at [30]: “In the case of a creditors’ scheme, an important aspect of the international effectiveness of a scheme involving the alteration of contractual rights may be that it should be made, not only by the court in the country of incorporation, but also where (as here) by the courts of the country whose law governs the contractual obligations. Otherwise dissentient creditors may disregard the scheme and enforce their claims against assets (including security for the debt) in countries outside the country of incorporation”. A parallel scheme is unnecessary when the compromise is not at risk from dissentient creditors.

As will be familiar to restructuring practitioners on the ground, at the coal-face, who assess whether a parallel, second or even third, scheme of arrangement is necessary, the exercise takes place over many months of complex negotiations and strategic positioning. In the vast majority of cases, creditor support builds up over time, and at the early stages, creditors and stakeholders jockey in negotiations for better terms, reluctant to make a binding commitment through increasingly complicated “lock-up letter” arrangements. Creditor “hold-out” is the norm and the demands for “sweeteners” go to the wire. On the day of the vote, and even the day of a scheme sanction hearing, the wrecking ball can hang over the restructuring professional team. The Drax point is the incontrovertible foundation of this exercise. Any assessment as to whether the parallel scheme was necessary should apply a legal test in “real-time”, based on evidence adduced for the dedicated purpose of determining that issue.

Position Paper on Parallel Schemes of Arrangement: the Harneys “Schemario Rules”

Leave A Comment