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.

The English High Court has sanctioned a restructuring plan in respect of EUR 3.2 billion of bonds issued by the German real estate business, Adler Group. The main objective of the plan was to avoid Adler's imminent insolvency by facilitating access to EUR 937.5 million of new money funding and thereby providing a stable platform from which Adler Group can pursue a solvent wind-down by asset sales over time in recovered market conditions. This represents a novel use of the restructuring plan procedure, which has previously been seen exclusively as a corporate 'rescue' tool.

While the timing of competing English and German insolvency applications in Re Galapagos allowed for clear determination of jurisdiction under the UK Insolvency Regulation, there remains potential uncertainty as to how similar competing applications made following 31 December 2020 will be resolved in the post-Brexit environment.

Background

The new Slovakian preventive restructuring framework aims to provide companies with a viable toolkit to deal with financial distress at an early stage and to counter the fact that the majority of Slovak companies enter an insolvency process having been insolvent for more than a year.

Main characteristics

One difficulty encountered by creditors and trustees in bankruptcy is the use of one or more aliases by a bankrupt. Whether it is an innocent use of a nickname or an attempt to conceal one's identity, the use of an alias can often create problems for creditors seeking to pursue debts and for trustees seeking to recover assets held by a bankrupt.

How does it happen?

The Slovak parliament recently passed a new law – The Temporary Protection of Distressed Undertakings Before Creditors – which came into effect on 1 January 2021. It replaces the current temporary protection (moratorium) adopted at the outset of the COVID-19 crisis.

The new regulation will only be granted where a majority of the unrelated creditors involved agree with the stay. This marks a departure from the COVID-19 moratorium, which could be easily accessed by all debtors impacted by the coronavirus pandemic.

As concerns about illegal phoenix activity continue to mount, it is worth remembering that the Corporations Act gives liquidators and provisional liquidators a powerful remedy to search and seize property or books of the company if it appears to the Court that the conduct of the liquidation is being prevented or delayed.

When a person is declared a bankrupt, certain liberties are taken away from that person. One restriction includes a prohibition against travelling overseas unless the approval has been given by the bankrupt's trustee in bankruptcy. This issue was recently considered by the Federal Court in Moltoni v Macks as Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Moltoni (No 2) [2020] FCA 792, which involved the Federal Court's review of the trustee's initial refusal of an application by a bankrupt, Mr Moltoni, to travel to and reside in the United Kingdom.

Since the outbreak of COVID-19 in Europe, the Slovak Parliament has adopted a series of new laws aiming predominantly to support employment, to provide financial aid and tax relief (particularly to SMEs) and to preserve and regulate legal enforcement.

The insolvency law related measures include mainly:

Debtor's filing

The statutory time limit for debtors to file for bankruptcy due to over-indebtedness (balance sheet test) that occurred between 12 March and 30 April 2020 has been prolonged from 30 to 60 days (and is expected to be prolonged further).

What makes a contract an unprofitable contract which can be disclaimed by a trustee in bankruptcy without the leave of the Court under section 133(5A) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (Bankruptcy Act)? Can a litigation funding agreement be considered an unprofitable contract when the agreement provides for a significant funder's premium or charge of 80% (85% in the case of an appeal)?