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.

This week’s TGIF considers a recent decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Forex Capital Trading Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v Invesus Group Limited [2024] NSWSC 867). Justice Ball determined that admission of a proof of debt by a liquidator was not akin to a judgment or settlement, and that such an admission did not create a new liability of the company.

11 U.S.C. § 1191(c)(2) provides (emphasis added):

• “(c) . . . the condition that a plan be fair and equitable . . . includes . . . (2) . . . all of the projected disposable income of the debtor to be received in the 3-year period, or such longer period not to exceed 5 years as the court may fix, . . . will be applied to make payments under the plan.”

There is little-to-no guidance in the Bankruptcy Code on what “as the court may fix” might mean. So, that meaning is left to the courts to decide.

Under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2), an individual debtor may be denied a discharge, in its entirely, for making a transfer “with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud” a creditor or the trustee.

On April 17, 2023, the Bankruptcy Court for Eastern Michigan ruled:

A “silent” creditor in Subchapter V is one who does not vote on the debtor’s plan and does not object to that plan. The “silent” creditor is a problem for Subchapter V cases.

The Problem

Here’s the problem: