Standard Profil’s scheme of arrangement was sanctioned by the English High Court on 9 September 2025, notwithstanding a recent Frankfurt court decision casting doubt on whether English restructuring plans and schemes of arrangement proposed by German companies would be capable of sanction by the English courts going forward as a result of recognition issues (see ‘More on this topic’).

When a company is in financial distress, directors face difficult choices. Should they trade on to try to “trade out” of the company’s financial difficulties or should they file for insolvency? If they act too soon, will creditors complain that they should have done more to save the business? A recent English High Court case raises the prospect of directors potentially being held to account for decisions that “merely postpone the inevitable.”

When a company is in financial distress, its directors will face difficult choices. Should they trade on to trade out of the company's financial difficulties or should they file for insolvency? If they delay filing and the company goes into administration or liquidation, will the directors be at risk from a wrongful trading claim by the subsequently appointed liquidator? Once in liquidation, will they be held to have separately breached their duties as directors and face a misfeasance claim? If they file precipitously, will creditors complain they did not do enough to save the business?

Now that HMRC has become a preferential creditor for certain debts, other creditors – such as suppliers – could lose out.

Under the Finance Act 2020, from 1 December 2020, HMRC became a preferential creditor in insolvency proceedings. This may have significant impact on what’s left for other creditors.

Life has a habit of testing us, personally and in business. In challenging circumstances, corporate insolvency can threaten even the strongest businesses, large or small.

Here are some tips to help you minimise the threat of insolvency.

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act (CIGA) came into force on 26 June 2020, introducing significant reforms intended to provide breathing space for companies during the coronavirus pandemic.

These measures may be a welcome relief to some struggling companies. However, they could prove problematic for suppliers, who will need to tread especially carefully when dealing with distressed or insolvent companies.

What has CIGA changed?

A new funding round could be a good time to sort out capital complexity. We take a high level view.

Many privately backed companies go through several financing rounds and find they end up with a very complex capitalisation structure, with various classes of preferred shares, ordinary shares and deferred shares, not to mention employee incentives and debt instruments. A new funding round is a good opportunity to restructure and simplify this legacy.

Frequently a debtor’s assets are sold out of bankruptcy “free and clear” of liens and claims under §363(f).  While the Bankruptcy Code imposes limits on this ability to sell assets, it does allow the sale free and clear if “such interest is in bona fide dispute” or if the price is high enough or the holder of the adverse interest “could be compelled ... to accept a money satisfaction of such interest” or if nonbankruptcy law permits such sale free and clear of such interest.

On February 5, 2016 the IRS released Chief Counsel Advice Memorandum Number 201606027 (the IRS Memo) concluding that “bad boy guarantees” may cause nonrecourse financing to become, for tax purposes, the sole recourse debt of the guarantor. This can dramatically affect the tax basis and at-risk investment of the borrowing entity’s partners or members. Non-recourse liability generally increases the tax basis and at-risk investment of all parties but recourse liability increases only that of the guarantor.

A long-honored concept in real property, that of “covenants running with the land,” is finding its way into the bankruptcy courts. If a covenant (a promise) runs with the land then it burdens or benefits particular real property and will be binding on the successor owner; if that covenant does not run with the land then it is personal and binds those who promised but does not impose itself on a successor owner.