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.”

The below sets out key considerations when dealing with an extension of an administration at the end of the first-year anniversary.

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.

Courts disagree over whether a foreign bankruptcy case can be recognized under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code if the foreign debtor does not reside or have assets or a place of business in the United States. In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit staked out its position on this issue in Drawbridge Special Opportunities Fund LP v. Barnet (In re Barnet), 737 F.3d 238 (2d Cir. 2013), ruling that the provision of the Bankruptcy Code requiring U.S. residency, assets, or a place of business applies in chapter 15 cases as well as cases filed under other chapters.

The Bankruptcy Code bars certain individuals or entities from filing for bankruptcy protection, generally because they do not reside or have a place of business or property in the United States, fail to satisfy certain debt thresholds, or are business entities, such as banks and insurance companies, subject to non-bankruptcy rules or regulations governing their rehabilitation or liquidation.

Determining a foreign debtor's "center of main interests" ("COMI") for purposes of recognizing a foreign bankruptcy proceeding in the United States under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code can be problematic in cases involving multiple debtors that are members of an enterprise group doing business in several different countries. The U.S.

"Comity" is a principle of jurisprudence whereby, under appropriate circumstances, one country recognizes within its borders the legislative, executive, or judicial acts of another nation. Many recent court rulings have examined the indispensable role of comity in the context of foreign bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings that have been "recognized" by U.S. courts during the two decades since the enactment of chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code. However, U.S.

A Hong Kong court has refused to sanction a scheme of arrangement, saying that practitioners should explain the key terms and effect of any proposed restructuring in a way which can be easily understood by the creditors and the court.

In Re Sino Oiland Gas Holdings Ltd [2024] HKCFI 1135, the Honourable Madam Justice Linda Chan refused to sanction a scheme of arrangement, saying that creditors had been given insufficient information about the restructuring and the scheme that would enable them to make an informed decision at the scheme meeting.