Videology Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Snowden |
| Judgment Date | 16 August 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] EWHC 2186 (Ch) |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: CR-2018-003870 |
| Date | 16 August 2018 |
and
[2018] EWHC 2186 (Ch)
Mr. Justice Snowden
Case No: CR-2018-003870
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
INSOLVENCY & COMPANIES LIST (ChD)
IN THE MATTER OF VIDEOLOGY LIMITED
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CROSS-BORDER INSOLVENCY REGULATIONS 2006
The Rolls Building
7 Rolls Buildings
Fetter Lane
London
EC4A 1NL
Robert Amey (instructed by DWF LLP) for the Applicant
Hearing dates: 11 May, 7 June and 13 June 2018
Introduction
On 13 June 2018 I refused to recognise proceedings under Chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code (“Chapter 11”) in relation to Videology Ltd (“the Company”) as a foreign main proceeding under Article 17 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (“the Model Law”) as incorporated into English law in Schedule 1 to the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (the “CBIR”). I did so because I was not satisfied that the centre of main interests (“COMI”) of the Company was in the US where the Chapter 11 proceedings are taking place. I did, however, grant recognition of the Chapter 11 proceedings as a foreign non-main proceeding.
In addition, I granted discretionary relief under Article 21(1)(g) of the Model Law equivalent to the moratorium against actions by individual creditors that would be provided to a company in administration under paragraph 43 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (“the Insolvency Act”). I also imposed a moratorium on applications for the commencement of collective insolvency proceedings in the UK without leave of the court.
I indicated on 13 June 2018 that I would give reasons for my decisions in writing, which I now do.
Background
The Videology Group
The Company is incorporated and has its registered office in England and Wales. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Videology Inc. (“Inc.”), a corporation incorporated in Delaware, United States. The Company forms part of a larger corporate group (“the Group”) of which Inc. is the parent company. The sole director of the Company is Mr. Scott Ferber (“Mr. Ferber”), who is also the co-founder and CEO of Inc..
The Group provides video advertising software which connects television and video viewing to media behaviour information and thus provides insight to clients on how to improve the effectiveness of video advertising campaigns (the “Video Advertising Software”). The evidence suggested that this technology is unique to the Group and was developed by Inc. to fill a gap in the advertising and media market. The intellectual property rights in the Video Advertising Software are owned by Inc. and licensed to the Company. The Group as a whole has an extensive client base, with over 4,000 active users, including some of the biggest names on both the supply and demand side of the market.
The Company was formed to establish and increase the Group's business in the UK and in Europe, the Middle East and Africa. It operates from leased premises in London. The business conducted by the Company using the Video Advertising Software accounts for a substantial proportion of the Group's revenue and accounts receivable.
Events Leading to the Chapter 11 Proceedings
The advanced television market is still relatively new, and in the early days of its business, the Group required substantial resources to get the Video Advertising Software onto the market. Initially, the Group focussed on online video sales using third-party data (the “Legacy Business”). However, as time progressed, the Legacy Business faced substantial competition.
In 2015, the Group launched its ‘Core Use’ business, which enabled its clients to utilise the Group's technology for their advertising strategies (the “Core Use Business”). The Core Use Business has enjoyed strong growth since its launch, with 29% revenue growth in the first year, 27% in the second year and approximately 60% growth expected through the current year.
However, the transition from the Legacy Business to the Core Use Business utilised substantial capital resources. This led the Group to pursue additional funding and from about 2014 to engage LUMA Partners, an investment bank focused on digital media and marketing, to provide advice and assistance in finding potential partners and purchasers for its business. These efforts were increased in Spring 2017 when the Group's financial difficulties worsened. LUMA and the Group contacted 27 potential financing partners. Five of these potential partners progressed to the due diligence stage of negotiations with the Group, but the negotiations foundered at the end of 2017 and ultimately no transaction was concluded. One of the reasons cited for the failure of such negotiations was the complex capital and debt structure of the Group.
Earlier this year, the lack of available capital led to the Group's largest client placing a temporary hold on payments. In turn this caused the Group's secured lenders to call a default under the Group's loan agreements, to seize control of the Group's operating bank accounts and significantly to restrict the Group's access to cash. This had a serious adverse effect on the Company.
On 10 May 2018, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries, including the Company, filed voluntary petitions under Chapter 11 in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. The purpose of the Chapter 11 proceedings was for the companies concerned to obtain protection from action by individual creditors, to stabilise their current operations and thereby to preserve value, to restructure their balance sheets, and in due course to effect a co-ordinated sale of the Group's business and assets.
At the commencement of the Chapter 11 process, the Company's principal financial liabilities were as follows:
i) Secured Liabilities
a) In July 2017 the companies in the Group had entered into or become parties to three loan and security agreements (“the Finance Agreements”) with Fast Pay Partners LLC (“Fast Pay”) as agent for various lenders, conveniently referred to as the UK Loan Agreement, the US Loan Agreement and the Receivables Financing Agreement. The UK Loan Agreement and the US Loan Agreement were governed by Californian law; the Receivables Financing Agreement was governed by English law. At the commencement of the Chapter 11 process, about US$11.3 million was outstanding from the Company under the UK Loan Agreement.
b) In connection with the Finance Agreements, the Company had also entered into a number of debentures and charges, all of which were subject to English law and some of which included a qualifying floating charge.
ii) Unsecured Liabilities At the commencement of the Chapter 11 process, the Company had unsecured (trade) creditors of about US$57.5 million, of which about 90% are overdue. As a result, the Company had been the subject of a number of county court proceedings and threats of insolvency proceedings from various trade creditors in the UK.
iii) Tax The Company had a liability to HMRC of about US$950,000 and penalties (which are disputed) had been levied for late filing of returns.
Prior to the commencement of the Chapter 11 process, two of the previously interested parties had expressed a renewed interest in purchasing the Group's business and assets, taking advantage of the simplification of the capital structure and the protections that would be available under a Chapter 11 process. One of those parties, Amobee Inc., entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement dated 5 May 2018 (the “APA”). This wa referred to as the “stalking horse” bid, and in effect provided a backstop to the competitive auction process which would take place if other qualified bidders submitted overbids in the Chapter 11 proceedings. That auction process required bids to be submitted by 11 July 2018 and the stated intention was that a sale would be completed shortly thereafter.
In order to be able to continue to trade during the period required for the business of the Group to be sold, debtor-in-possession (“DIP”) financing was obtained from Draper Funder LLC (the “DIP Lender”) and security granted by companies in the Group (including the Company) for such loans.
The evidence was that after completion, the proceeds of sale of the Group's business would be used to repay the DIP Lender, administrative expenses and other priority claims. The next step would be for the creditors' committee and the debtor companies to negotiate a Chapter 11 plan for distribution of those net proceeds. In that regard, one of the first issues would be to agree a proper allocation of the proceeds of sale between the Group companies, including, in particular between Inc. (as owner of the intellectual property rights) and the Company (as owner of a substantial proportion of the accounts receivable).
The Applications for Recognition
Although the filing of the proceedings under Chapter 11 by Inc. and the Company resulted in immediate protection from individual creditor action under US law, it was considered essential for similar protection to be obtained by both companies in the UK. To that end, on 11 May 2018, the day after the Chapter 11 proceedings were commenced, two urgent applications were made to me under the CBIR (i) by Inc. and Mr. Ferber, and (ii) by the Company and Mr. Ferber, for:
i) recognition of the Chapter 11 proceedings in relation to both Inc. and the Company as foreign main proceedings under Article 17 of the Model Law; and
ii) discretionary relief pursuant to Article 20(6) and/or Article 21(1) of the Model Law, substantially in the form of the administration moratorium under paragraph 43 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act.
In respect of Inc., I was satisfied on the evidence that both Inc. and Mr Ferber were foreign representatives for the purposes...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barings (UK) Ltd v Galapagos S.A.
...Re Noble Group Ltd [2019] BCC 34, are all examples of cases in which this has been done.” 80 As Snowden J had noted in Re Videology [2018] EWHC 2186 (Ch), [2019] BCC 195, §35, the reason for the emphasis on the perception of third parties was given at §75 of the 1996 Virgós/Schmit Report o......
-
Noble Group Ltd
...is not an illusion, and whether it has the necessary element of permanence. I considered some of those points in my recent judgment in Re Videology Limited [2018] EWHC 2186 96 In the context of a scheme, whilst the English Court will be astute to detect a COMI-shift performed for illegitim......
-
Luc A. Despins (as Foreign Representative of HO Wan Kwok) v HO Wan Kwok
...of the model law including Rubin v Eurofinance SA [2011] Ch 133, Re 19 Entertainment Ltd [2016] EWHC 1545 (Ch), Re Videology Ltd [2018] EWHC 2186 (Ch) and Re Astora Women's Health LLC [2022] EWHC 2412 (Ch). I accept that the present proceedings are a foreign proceeding on that 29 As to ......
-
Michael Carter v Roy Bailey and Keiran Hutchison (as foreign representatives of Sturgeon Central Asia Balanced Fund Ltd)
...[2018] Bus LR 64, and the first instance decisions of an eminent insolvency and company law judge, Mr Justice Snowden in Re Videology [2018] EWHC 2186. The same Judge referred to the Guide to Enactment 2014 in In re OGX Petroleo e Gas SA [2016] Bus LR 84 In my judgment, even if I were to ap......
-
Timing is everything: different approaches to the relevant date for determining COMI in cross-border recognition proceedings
...in administering the insolvent estate. The orthodox UK position does not diverge from that of Europe. In Re Videology Ltd [2018] EWHC 2186 (Ch), on a recognition application under the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations (which implement the Model Law in the UK), the court held that COMI for......