In a well-known episode of the comedy “Fawlty Towers”, hotel boss Basil Fawlty was frustrated. A guest had asked for a Waldorf salad. Basil had no idea how to make such a dish, and his attempts to do so were criticised by the guest.  

In Vesnin v Queeld Ventures Ltd & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 951, the English Court of Appeal has ruled that in an application for recognition at common law of a foreign insolvency, a respondent to that application may have standing to oppose the recognition even if they are not a creditor. The fact that other relief is sought against them, which is contingent on recognition of the foreign insolvency, can and usually will suffice to give them standing to oppose the recognition.

Background

On 1 July, the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s decision1 to sanction the restructuring plans proposed by two Petrofac group companies as they did not consider that the benefits of the restructuring had been fairly allocated. 

Of particular interest to commercial landlords, the recent decision of the court in SBP 2 SARL v 2 Southbank Tenant Ltd [2025]EWHC 16 (Ch) illustrates the risks to a landlord of simply cross-referring to Section 123 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (respectively, Section 123 and the 1986 Act) in the forfeiture provisions of a lease without specifying any amendments to the statutory language and thereby provides a reminder of the importance of careful and accurate drafting.

Macfarlanes and Burness Paull recently advised Dobbies Garden Centres, the UK’s largest operator of garden centres, on its restructuring plan under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006, which was approved by Lord Braid in the Court of Session in Scotland on 9 December 2024.

In 2023 we published 10 do’s and don’ts for restructuring plans, find our previous article available here. Following on from our initial article we have outlined five more do’s and don’ts reflecting the development of restructuring plans in 2024.

To encourage vendors and other creditors to continue doing business with financially distressed entities, the Bankruptcy Code includes various defenses to litigation brought by a bankruptcy trustee or chapter 11 debtor-in-possession ("DIP") seeking to avoid pre-bankruptcy payments to such entities. One of these defenses shields from avoidance transfers made to pay debts incurred in the ordinary course of business of the debtor and the transferee.

Mitigating risk of loss associated with a bankruptcy filing should be an element of any commercial transaction, especially if it involves a sale or license of intellectual property rights. A ruling recently handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit provides a stark reminder of the consequences of when it is not. In In re Mallinckrodt PLC, 99 F.4th 617 (3d Cir.

Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code's "safe harbor" preventing avoidance in bankruptcy of certain securities, commodity, or forward-contract payments has long been a magnet for controversy. Several noteworthy court rulings have been issued in bankruptcy cases addressing the scope of the provision, including its limitation to transactions involving "financial institutions" as transferors or transferees, its preemption of avoidance litigation that could have been commenced by or on behalf of creditors under applicable non-bankruptcy law, and its application to non-public transactions.

A bedrock principle underlying chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code is that creditors, shareholders, and other stakeholders should be provided with adequate information to make an informed decision to either accept or reject a chapter 11 plan. For this reason, the Bankruptcy Code provides that any "solicitation" of votes for or against a plan must be preceded or accompanied by stakeholders' receipt of a "disclosure statement" approved by the bankruptcy court explaining the background of the case as well as the key provisions of the chapter 11 plan.