The High Court sanctioned Madagascar Oil Limited’s restructuring plan, exercising cross class cram down. The judgment deals with a few now familiar points: what is the relevant alternative? Can it be a different deal? As well as touching on a few novel ones in an unusual two class only plan: was there in fact an in the money class enabling cross class cram down? Almost a third of the judgment is devoted to international recognition and effectiveness of the plan in Madagascar and Mauritius, an unusually detailed analysis, but required here given the specific facts of the case.

In a significant further application of the Court of Appeal’s reasoning in Adler, Thames Water and Petrofac, the High Court declined to sanction a cross-class cram down restructuring plan proposed by Waldorf Production UK Plc.

Introduction

On 20 May 2025, Mr Justice Marcus Smith handed down his eagerly-awaited judgment sanctioning the two inter-conditional restructuring plans (the Plans) proposed by members of the Petrofac Group. The judgment raises issues described as “going to the heart of the Part 26A regime” and is significant as the first case to consider the application of the Court of Appeal’s ruling in Thames Water.

The judgment addresses three particularly interesting points:

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:

Sanctions regulations won't prevent administration orders but may affect timings and require undertakings

Chart Comparing Exemptions

The specific bankruptcy and nonbankruptcy (Minnesota law and nonbankruptcy federal law) exemptions vary in scope and dollar amount. The following table summarizes and compares the two sets of exemptions. The statutory language of the exemption has been paraphrased in this chart. The actual statutory language as well as case law must be reviewed when analyzing a debtor’s claim for a particular exemption.

Revised August 2024

On September 13, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware issued a highly anticipated decision in the In re: Yellow Corporation, et al. bankruptcy that addressed objections to 11 multiemployer pension funds’ withdrawal liability claims totaling $6.5 billion, where those plans received billions in taxpayer-funded Special Financial Assistance (SFA) provided under the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) that was not included in plan assets for purposes of the withdrawal liability assessments based upon PBGC regulations.

Restructuring Plans: should an opposing creditor be granted security for costs? Might that open the floodgates where companies are by definition “distressed,” or was this particular Plan more akin to ordinary adversarial litigation? Read our summary below.

We have a direct statutory conflict:

• one statute requires an ERISA dispute to be resolved in arbitration; but
• a bankruptcy statute requires the same dispute to be resolved in bankruptcy.

Which statute should prevail? The bankruptcy statute, of course.

• That’s the conclusion of In re Yellow Corp.[Fn. 1]

Statutory Conflict

The In re Yellow Corp. case presents a direct conflict between these two federal statutes (emphases added):

In a recent judgment¹, the High Court determined (contrary to the arguments of the affected secured creditor) that a debenture created a floating charge rather than a fixed charge over certain internet protocol (IP) addresses. Whilst elements of the decision are inevitably fact-specific, some broader lessons and reminders can be taken from the judgment which will be of general relevance to lenders when taking security.