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.

On 8 April 2025, Mr Justice Marcus Smith delivered judgment granting Petrofac Limited and Petrofac International (UAE) LLC (the Plan Companies) permission to convene creditor meetings in respect of two inter-conditional restructuring Plans (the Plans). The fulsome judgment, following hearings on 28 February and 20 March, contains a number of interesting points:

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

The Sino-Ocean restructuring plan is the first to be sanctioned in 2025 – but it starts the year off with a very interesting bang. In a relatively short (and commendably clear) judgment, the Court addresses head on:

New rules in the UK allow Companies House to share non-public information with insolvency officeholders and the Official Receiver.

While in many cases there may be limited non-public information available from Companies House that will be useful to insolvency officeholders, this is another tool available to deploy in appropriate cases. It is specifically envisaged to assist officeholders pursuing claims for fraudulent and wrongful trading, transactions at an undervalue and preferences.

On 13 December 2024, EU member states agreed on a ‘partial’ general approach to the harmonisation of insolvency law.

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.

The Abu Dhabi Global Market (the “ADGM”) courts have recently handed down their decision in NMC Healthcare Limited & Others v Shetty & Others ([2024] ADGMCFI 0007). The decision deals with several important principles in relation to fraudulent/wrongful trading liabilities under ADGM law. Given the ADGM re-domiciliation (or continuation) regime, enabling companies incorporated elsewhere to be redomiciled to ADGM with relative ease, the decision is likely to be of interest beyond the borders of the ADGM.

What happens to a company at the end of an administration is a question that probably only keeps insolvency anoraks up at night.

There are a limited number of potential options, with the rescue of the company as a going concern being the number one objective to which all administrators aspire. However, more often than not, an administration will end with the company entering liquidation or, where the company has no property to permit a distribution to creditors, the dissolution of the company.