On 18 September 2025, the Chancellor of the High Court, the Rt. Hon. Sir Julian Flaux announced the long-awaited publication of the updated Practice Statement in relation to schemes of arrangement and restructuring plans (the "New Practice Statement"). Revision of the existing Practice Statement was, in large part, driven by the rise in contested schemes and restructuring plans which, in turn, has put significant pressure on the Court system.

Liability management transactions which may favour a subset of creditors over another are increasingly common in the US leveraged finance markets. 2024 may be seen as the year in which these US imports began to make a real impact in Europe. Which strategies could creditors employ to protect themselves from unfavourable treatment where such transactions are attempted?

In the current market, investors are increasingly considering their options in relation to the stressed and distressed credits in their portfolios. Whilst mindful of stakeholder relationships, secured lenders may, in some circumstances, wish to consider the "nuclear option": enforcing their share pledge over a holding company of the operating group (ideally, such pledge being over a single company which directly or indirectly holds the entire business - a "single point of enforcement").

Earlier this year, the English Court refused to sanction two Part 26A restructuring plans ("RPs") which sought to bind HMRC, the UK tax authority, into restructurings via "cross-class cram down".

Rises in energy costs, disruption to global supply chains, the situation in Ukraine, soaring inflation and higher interest rates are pushing several major European economies towards recession. Borrowers and issuers in the leveraged loan and high yield markets are feeling the impact and the benign refinancing conditions of 2021 are long gone. The natural consequence is rising default rates – S&P's global corporate default count for 2022 surpassed 2021's year-to-date tally during September.

The economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic led to a wave of creditor schemes of arrangement ("schemes") and restructuring plans ("RPs") in the second half of 2020, which shows no sign of abating in 2021. For the uninitiated, the scheme (a long-established tool) and the newer RP process are court led UK restructuring options that a company can use to bind a minority of creditors into a restructuring. An RP can also be used to "cram down" an entire dissenting creditor class into a deal where certain conditions are met.

In September 2008, the seismic collapse of Lehman Brothers initiated one of the largest corporate insolvencies in history. Nearly ten years later, in a landmark decision, the High Court has sanctioned the scheme proposed by the administrators of its principal European trading arm, Lehman Brothers International Europe ("LBIE").1

The Bankruptcy Code’s cramdown provisions are a powerful tool for debtors in the plan confirmation process. Pursuant to section 1129(a)(10) of the Bankruptcy Code, a plan may be confirmed if, among other things, “at least one class of claims that is impaired under the plan has accepted the plan.” Once there is an impaired accepting class, and assuming certain requirements are met, the plan may then be “crammed down” on all other classes of impaired creditors that reject the plan and those creditors will be bound by the terms of a plan they rejected.

Recoupment is an equitable remedy – not expressly addressed in the Bankruptcy Code – that permits the offset of mutual debts arising out of the same transaction or occurrence. Unlike typical setoff, if recoupment applies, prepetition debts can be set off against postpetition debts. A recent decision from the Delaware bankruptcy court demonstrates that the availability of recoupment often depends on how the court defines the contours of the “same transaction or occurrence” requirement.

The Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware recently faced a question of first impression: whether an allowed postpetition administrative expense claim can be used to set off preference liability. In concluding that it can, the court took a closer look at the nature of a preference claim.

Facts and Arguments