Apcoa Parking Holdings GmbH & Ors (Rev 1) [2014] EWHC 1867 (Ch) (14 April 2014)

Apcoa Parking Holdings GmbH & Ors (Rev 1) [2014] EWHC 1867 (Ch) (14 April 2014)

The court sanctioned the schemes because the statutory requirements were met, class meetings were properly constituted and conducted, there was no opposition or conflicting interest, the schemes were fair, and sufficient jurisdictional connection to England was established through the change of law clause and expert evidence on recognition in other jurisdictions.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 1867 (Ch)
Parties
Applicant Scheme Companies: APCOA Parking Holdings GmbH and Others; Respondents: Centerbridge Partners, L.P. and Centerbridge Partners Europe, L.P.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Scheme of Arrangement Under Companies Act 2006 / Sanction Hearing
Outcome
Schemes sanctioned
Legal Topics
Schemes of Arrangement, Jurisdiction, Fairness, Class Composition, Recognition of English Orders
Company Law Insolvency Law Cross Border Law Schemes of Arrangement Jurisdiction Fairness Class Composition Recognition of English Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

APCOA Parking Holdings GmbH and Others

Applicant Scheme Companies

Centerbridge Partners, L.P. and Centerbridge Partners Europe, L.P.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Scheme of Arrangement Under Companies Act 2006 / Sanction Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should sanction nine schemes of arrangement under Part 26 of the Companies Act 2006
  2. 2 Whether the class meetings were properly constituted and conducted
  3. 3 Whether there is any conflicting interest or opposition

Ratio Decidendi

The court sanctioned the schemes because the statutory requirements were met, class meetings were properly constituted and conducted, there was no opposition or conflicting interest, the schemes were fair, and sufficient jurisdictional connection to England was established through the change of law clause and expert evidence on recognition in other jurisdictions.

Court Disposition

Schemes sanctioned

Orders

  • Sanction of nine schemes of arrangement under Part 26 of the Companies Act 2006
  • Court to consider terms of orders with Counsel