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.

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

On 8 October 2020, the Insolvency Service published the outcome of its review of industry reforms to pre-pack sales in administration and made recommendations which will impact the way in which pre-pack sales to connected parties in particular operate in the UK in the future.

Speed read

A cross-practice team led by partner Tom Astle has advised a syndicate of c.75 lenders under a bespoke €1.06bn super priority loan to distressed Croatian food producing and retail giant Agrokor (the “SPFA“) on an English law scheme of arrangement proposed by the company. The scheme of arrangement was approved by 97.92% in number of the lenders under the SPFA, representing 99.99% in value of scheme claims, at the creditors’ meeting earlier this week, and was sanctioned by Mr Justice Fancourt this morning.

It is not unusual for a creditor of a debtor to cry foul that a non-debtor affiliate has substantial assets, but has not joined the bankruptcy. In some cases, the creditor may assert that even though its claim, on its face, is solely against the debtor, the debtor and the non-debtor conducted business as a single unit, or that the debtor indicated that the assets of the non-debtor were available to satisfy claims. In these circumstances, the creditor would like nothing more than to drag that asset-rich non-debtor into the bankruptcy to satisfy its claims. Is that possible?

Last week, President Trump unveiled his proposal to fix our nation’s aging infrastructure. While the proposal lauded $1.5 trillion in new spending, it only included $200 billion in federal funding. To bridge this sizable gap, the plan largely relies on public private partnerships (often referred to as P3s) that can use tax-exempt bond financing.

Last week, President Trump unveiled his proposal to fix our nation’s aging infrastructure. While the proposal lauded $1.5 trillion in new spending, it only included $200 billion in federal funding. To bridge this sizable gap, the plan largely relies on public private partnerships (often referred to as P3s) that can use tax-exempt bond financing.

There are numerous reasons why a company might use more than one entity for its operations or organization: to silo liabilities, for tax advantages, to accommodate a lender, or for general organizational purposes. Simply forming a separate entity, however, is not enough. Corporate formalities must be followed or a court could effectively collapse the separate entities into one. A recent opinion by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts, Lassman v.