With many airlines having weathered the storm of the Covid-19 pandemic, one common theme with airline restructurings has been a clear reliance on the United States’ Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings – particularly over their domestic jurisdictions or other viable jurisdictions (such as a UK scheme of arrangement or UK restructuring plan). But when seeking to restructure, why have many airlines tended towards Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings as an internationally recognised restructuring procedure and shied away from the UK schemes?

Preparing a business for an exit can be a complex and time-consuming task.

After years of hard-fought litigation, most claimants are thrilled to obtain a final and enforceable judgment or arbitration award. However, more often than one thinks, this excitement is followed by the disappointing realization that the defendant has little interest in voluntarily satisfying the award.

The recent High Court decisions in Boughey & Anor v Toogood International Transport and Agricultural Services Ltd and Re Pindar Scarborough Ltd (in administration) have helpfully provided clarity on the extent to which secured creditors that have been paid in full are required to consent to proposed administration extensions. Unhelpfully, however, the court’s approach is fundamentally at odds with the position of the Insolvency Service.

This year was set up for disappointment in restructuring activity, given high levels of Chapter 11 filings and debt defaults in 2023 — especially in 1H23 — as well as the resurgence of leverage credit issuance since late 2023 that has allowed many distressed companies to address near-term debt maturities or liquidity challenges without a formal restructuring event. Restructuring activity in 2024 is almost certain to come up short of last year’s high bar; the only question is by how much.

Bij onroerende goederen, kan de situatie ontstaan dat tijdens de bouw een hypotheekrecht wordt gevestigd ten behoeve van de bank. Als de opdrachtgever failliet gaat, en de aannemer oefent het retentierecht uit, wie mag dan het onroerend goed verkopen? De Hoge Raad heeft hier onlangs uitgebreid antwoord op gegeven.

In an announcement to beneficiaries on 24 March 2024[1], the joint administrative receivers (JARs) of Sigma Finance Corporation (the Company), once thought to be “insolvency proof” 

Chris Pearce, Blackwall Legal LLP

This is an extract from the 2025 edition of GRR's The Asia-Pacific Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.

This is an Insight article, written by a selected partner as part of GRR's co-published content. Read more on Insight

In summary

When a legal dispute is brought to court, court fees are payable. Court fee is the fee levied by the judicial authority for handling the case. The amount of these fees depends, for example, on the nature of the case, a litigant’s income, and whether a natural person or legal entity is litigating. Under these circumstances, a (legal) person may qualify for the reduced court fee for insolvent persons.

Reduced court fee for insolvent persons

Pursuant to the Civil Cases Fees Act, the reduced court fee for the insolvent may be levied in the following two cases:

Under federal law, a debtor may be criminally prosecuted for various kinds of misconduct in connection with a bankruptcy case, including concealing assets, falsifying information, embezzlement, or bribery. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 152, 157. The U.S. Trustee, which serves as a watchdog over the bankruptcy process, will refer such cases to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for investigation and prosecution.