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.

Since the first Johnson & Johnson talc bankruptcy was filed in 2021, Judge Michael Kaplan has faced countless disagreements in the US Bankruptcy Court. These range from discovery fights, disputes over administration of tens of thousands of individual claims and all-out conflict over the total amount in controversy.

In a welcome clarification for administrators, the UK Supreme Court in the recent case of R (on the application of Palmer) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates’ Court[1], held that an administrator appointed under the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) is not an “officer” of the company for the purposes of section 194(3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA).

In this client alert, we set out the key findings by the Court of Appeal in Darty Holdings SAS v Geoffrey Carton-Kelly [2023] EWCA Civ 1135, which considers an appeal against the High Court decision that a repayment by Comet Group plc (“Comet”) of £115 million of unsecured intra-group debt to Kesa International Ltd (“KIL”) was a preference under section 239 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”).

Background to the Case

Whilst commonplace in the U.S., uptier transactions in which a borrower teams up with a subset of creditors to issue new “super priority” debt by amending or exchanging existing debt documents, have not been widely used in Europe.

However, with increasing macro economic pressures and financial market instability, we may see more European borrowers taking advantage of flexibility in cov-lite debt documentation to implement liability management transactions as an alternative to, or even as part of, more formal restructurings.