Surviving Tough Times: Is a Scheme of Arrangement

MMAN Advocates | View firm profile

The Solution?

The just concluded capital restructuring of national carrier Kenya
Airways PLC, part of which involved twelve of its most significant
creditors (the Government of Kenya and eleven commercial banks), is an
interesting illustration of one kind of corporate restructuring
available to struggling companies under the Companies Act, 2015.

Following huge losses reported in FY 2014/2015 (KES 25.7 billion) and
FY 2015/2016 (KES 26.2 billion), the airline embarked on a
comprehensive turnaround strategy to improve operations and financial
performance. This included a review of the company’s capital structure
with the objective, inter alia, of reducing the overall level of
borrowings and increasing liquidity1.

Kenya Airways has implemented this strategy through various transactions; including a statutory scheme of arrangement for
the conversion to equity of approximately US$ 238 million of unsecured
debt plus US$ 26 million accrued interest owed to the Government of
Kenya and approximately US$ 221 million of unsecured debt plus accrued
interest owed to 11 commercial banks. The conversion was enhanced by
provision of a sovereign guarantee from the Government that partially
related to the banks’ existing exposure.

So how did Kenya Airways go about putting the scheme in place?

Schemes of Arrangement

Part XXXIV of the Companies Act 2015 sets out the procedure for
implementing a court sanctioned scheme of arrangement through which a
company can make a compromise or arrangement with its creditors and/or
members (or any class of them). There is no statutory limit to what a
scheme can address, and as such a scheme can be a compromise or
arrangement about any matter that a company and its creditors and/or
members may agree upon. However, it is important to note that for a
scheme to be upheld by the Courts, it must contain an element of
accommodation on each side, in other words a scheme cannot simply
expropriate a member’s or creditor’s rights without granting any
compensating advantage2.

The process for implementing a scheme requires that a company, or any
creditor or member of the company, or the liquidator or administrator
of a company in liquidation, apply to the High Court of Kenya requesting
the Court to order a meeting of the creditors or the members of the
company (or a class thereof), in such manner as the Court directs.

Following such an order, the company concerned is required to ensure
that a notice of the meeting is made available to the affected creditors
or members, together with a written statement that (a) explains the
effect of the proposed compromise or arrangement, and (b) specifies any
material interests of the directors of the company and the effect of
those interests on the compromise or arrangement, if different from the
effect on similar interests of other persons.

Ideally, in the explanatory statement the company should demonstrate
the benefit of the proposed arrangement to the members or creditors
affected, in contrast to a continuation of the existing situation and
the presumably more significant attendant risks to those members or
creditors.

If a majority in number representing 75% in value of the creditors or
members (or relevant class), present and voting at the meeting, agree
to the compromise or arrangement, then on application, the Court may
sanction the scheme. An application for a sanction order must be filed
by the company, any creditor or member, or a liquidator or administrator
if applicable. Once sanctioned, the scheme of arrangement is binding on
all creditors or members (or the class concerned) and the company, or a
liquidator and contributories (if applicable).

Once issued, and in order to be legally effective, the sanction order
must be filed with the Registrar of Companies, after which the company
can proceed with implementation of the scheme.

Conclusion

For a company going through tough times, a scheme of arrangement
presents an opportunity to reach a compromise or arrangement with
creditors, whether through a conversion of debt to equity as was the
case for Kenya Airways, or through any other genuine structure that will
allow it the breathing space to focus on a return to profitability.

The beauty of a court sanctioned scheme is that as long as the
required majority of designated creditors agree to it, the company can
proceed with that arrangement without obtaining the approval of all
relevant creditors. As a result, a company in distress may be able to
avert insolvency proceedings and possible liquidation, which is often a
‘lose-lose’ outcome for all involved. Thus, given the unsecured status
of the eleven banks to Kenya Airways, the incentive to agree to the
airline’s scheme would seem clear. Moreover, a negative outcome for the
airline would have extended beyond its creditors and shareholders, to
affect critical sectors of Kenya’s economy such as tourism. Let’s hope
that the Kenya Airways scheme of arrangement achieves the desired
outcome and that other companies are inspired to consider schemes of
arrangement as a potential solution to imminent disaster.


Article written by Suzanne Muthaura, Partner -MMAN Advocates


Disclaimer: This article has been prepared for informational
purposes only and is not legal advice. This information is not intended
to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client
relationship. Nothing on this article is intended to guaranty, warranty,
or predict the outcome of a particular case and should not be construed
as such a guaranty, warranty, or prediction. The authors are not
responsible for any actions (or lack thereof) taken as a result of
relying on or in any way using information contained in this article and
in no event shall be liable for any damages resulting from reliance on
or use of this information. Readers should take specific advice from a
qualified professional when dealing with specific situations.

More from MMAN Advocates