Standard Profil’s scheme of arrangement was sanctioned by the English High Court on 9 September 2025, notwithstanding a recent Frankfurt court decision casting doubt on whether English restructuring plans and schemes of arrangement proposed by German companies would be capable of sanction by the English courts going forward as a result of recognition issues (see ‘More on this topic’).

On 23 January 2024, the English Court of Appeal set aside the April 2023 order of the High Court sanctioning the English Part 26A restructuring plan (the “Plan”) proposed by AGPS BondCo plc (the “Plan Company”), a subsidiary of Adler Group SA (Adler Group SA and its subsidiaries being the "Adler Group"). The successful appeal was brought by an ad hoc group of holders of the Adler Group's 2029 notes (the "AHG"). The practical consequences of this decision for the Adler Group's restructuring remain to be seen.

When a debtor files for bankruptcy, it’s axiomatic that all creditors, wherever located, must immediately cease their efforts to collect on debts owed to them by that debtor, right? Not necessarily so, says the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, insofar as those creditors and their collateral are located outside of the United States.

Nostrum Oil & Gas PLC’s scheme of arrangement under Part 26 of the Companies Act 2006 (the “Scheme”) was sanctioned on 26 August 2022, with the “scheme effective date” occurring on 31 August 2022.

Judgment has been reserved on the sanction of Houst Ltd’s restructuring plan at a hearing held in front of Zacaroli J on Friday morning (15 July 2022), while the company gathers the further valuation information requested by the court. If sanctioned, the plan will be the first use of the restructuring plan by an SME, and will involve a “cram” of HMRC notwithstanding the tax authority’s secondary preferential creditor status.

The proposed plan

The Bankruptcy Protector

Envision a scenario in which you purchased a right of first refusal for a parcel of real estate. That right, as bargained for, would let you purchase the parcel if it was put up for sale by matching any competing bidder’s offer. As a diligent prospective purchaser, you would naturally record that right of first refusal in the appropriate land records. So far so good.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently ruled in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtors’ attempt to shield contributions to a 401(k) retirement account from “projected disposable income,” therefore making such amounts inaccessible to the debtors’ creditors.^[1] For the reasons explained below, the Sixth Circuit rejected the debtors’ arguments.

Case Background

A person in possession of a debtor’s property upon a bankruptcy filing now has more guidance from the Supreme Court as to the effect of the automatic stay. In City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton, 141 S. Ct. 585 (2021), handed down on January 14 of 2021, the Court was faced with the issue of whether the City of Chicago (the “City”) was liable for violation of the automatic stay for refusing to return vehicles it impounded pre-petition. Issuing a narrow decision under Section 362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Court held that it was not.

A statute must be interpreted and enforced as written, regardless, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, “of whether a court likes the results of that application in a particular case.” That legal maxim guided the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning in a recent decision^[1] in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtor’s repeated filings and requests for dismissal of his bankruptcy cases in order to avoid foreclosure of his home.

On January 14, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton (Case No. 19-357, Jan. 14, 2021), a case which examined whether merely retaining estate property after a bankruptcy filing violates the automatic stay provided for by §362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court overruled the bankruptcy court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in deciding that mere retention of property does not violate the automatic stay.

Case Background