Despite meeting statutory jurisdictional requirements under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006, the High Court declined to exercise its discretion in favour of sanctioning Waldorf Production UK Plc’s restructuring plan in August 2025due to concerns about fair allocation of value and lack of meaningful engagement with unsecured creditors.

An insolvency practitioner (IP) can pursue a wide range of claims when appointed as the administrator or liquidator of a company. 

These include claims that already existed at the point that the company entered an insolvency process (Pre-existing Company Claims), and ones that arise on insolvency (IP Claims see below).

An IP pursues Pre-existing Company Claims as agent for and in the name of the company, and these types of claims typically include claims for debt, breach of contract, breach of duty or recovery of property.

The Insolvency Service (in reply to a letter from R3) has confirmed that it will be reframing its view of the term "creditor". This follows the cases last year of Pindar and Toogood where the court was asked to consider whether a paid secured creditor should have consented to an administration extension and therefore, in the absence of consent, whether the extensions were valid in both cases, the judges confirmed that the consent of paid secured creditors was not required.

Restructuring Plans (RPs)

2024 was a year of firsts for RPs, and as case law in this area continues to evolve, there is little doubt that this will carry through into 2025.

It would be remiss not to expect to see more RPs in 2025. News of Thames Water's restructuring is "splashed" all over the press and Speciality Steel's plan might see the first "cram up" of creditors, but there seems a long way to go to get creditors onside.

When a company is in financial distress, directors face difficult choices. Should they trade on to try to “trade out” of the company’s financial difficulties or should they file for insolvency? If they act too soon, will creditors complain that they should have done more to save the business? A recent English High Court case raises the prospect of directors potentially being held to account for decisions that “merely postpone the inevitable.”

Categorisation of a charge as fixed or floating will have a significant impact on how assets are dealt with on insolvency and creditor outcomes.

Typical fixed charge assets include land, property, shares, plant and machinery, intellectual property such as copyrights, patents and trademarks and goodwill.

Typical floating charge assets include stock and inventory, trade debtors, cash and currency, movable plant and machinery (such as vehicles), and raw materials and other consumable items used by the business.

As practitioners we pour over notices of intention to appoint (NOIA) and notices of appointment of administrators (NOA) to make sure every detail is accurate. Why? Because no one wants to risk an invalid appointment because there was a minor mistake or error that was overlooked. Understandably errors occur, particularly when the appointment of administrators often happens at speed, with all parties inevitably juggling many balls. Prescribed information may have been missed, or incorrectly stated and procedural steps may have been inadvertently forgotten.

For those that are that way inclined (which includes us at #SPBRestructuring!), the 500 plus page Wright v Chappell judgment which sets out the BHS wrongful trading claim against its former directors makes for an interesting read. It paints a colourful picture of the downfall of the BHS group, from the point that it was sold for £1 to its eventual demise into administration and then liquidation. You can make your own mind up about the characters involved, but the story is a sorry one, with creditors ultimately suffering the most.

No, it isn’t. We now have two cases where the Court has confirmed that insolvency practitioners do not need the consent of paid secured creditors when extending an administration under para. 78 of Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”).

This question was considered in the recent case of Pindar where the judge concluded that an administration had been validly extended where the consent of one of the secured creditors (who had been paid) was not obtained.