On 12 June 2025, the Council of the EU announced that member states have agreed on a general approach to a directive aimed at bringing national insolvency standards closer together. This draft directive is designed to make the EU more attractive to foreign and cross-border investors by reducing the legal uncertainties and complexities associated with differing national insolvency laws.
It’s hard to write a pithy article about the transfer of proceedings from the High Court in London to the Central London County Court (CLCC), but given its wide-reaching implications I thought it was worth a try.
The appointment of an independent director is a powerful tool for private credit lenders. The appointment is designed to introduce a voice of neutrality and fairness into the board’s decision-making process with the hope and expectation that independence from the controlling shareholder enables the board to drive toward viable value-maximizing strategies. Often times, the independent director is vested with exclusive authority (or veto rights) over a range of significant corporate decisions, including a sale, restructuring and the decision to file a bankruptcy case.
The High Court has approved a £3bn rescue package for Thames Water to plug the leak in the water company's finances while it seeks to secure a wider restructuring deal. This is stage one in Thames Water's plan to restructure its £19bn debt mountain and secure £5bn in equity investment, with the initial cash injection urgently required to service £200m of debt which falls due on 24 March.
In a recent ruling (NMC Health PLC (in Administration) v Ernst & Young LLP [2024] EWHC 2905 (Comm)), the High Court declined to order disclosure of witness statements and transcripts of interviews conducted by administrators during their initial investigations, citing litigation privilege.
Litigation privilege
On 13 December 2024, EU member states agreed on a ‘partial’ general approach to the harmonisation of insolvency law.
On 25 October 2024, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled in a ground-breaking judgment in Royal IHC that a WHOA plan may change creditors’ and shareholders’ rights but cannot impose more onerous obligations. More specifically, the lenders cannot be compelled to provide new financing or to accept new terms and still provide new funds under previously committed credit facilities (i.e., undrawn commitments).
How to keep your head above water in the face of economic uncertainty, as told by Lucy Trott, Senior Associate, Stevens & Bolton.
Businesses in turmoil dominate the financial press. That depiction of financial distress is supported by monthly figures which make plain that the financial legacy of the Covid-19 pandemic is an increasing number of insolvencies. It is a trend which does not show any sign of abating.
One common denominator links nearly all stressed businesses: tight liquidity. After the liquidity hole is identified and sized, the discussion inevitably turns to the question of who will fund the necessary capital to extend the liquidity runway. For a PE-backed business where there is a credible path to recovery, a sponsor, due to its existing equity stake, is often willing to inject additional capital into an underperforming portfolio company.
In a much-anticipated decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently held that unsecured noteholders’ claims against a debtor for certain “Applicable Premiums” were the “economic equivalent” to unmatured interest and, therefore, not recoverable under section 502(b)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code.