The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware has issued a significant ruling in the cross‑border insolvency practice that reaffirms U.S. recognition of foreign restructuring plans containing third-party releases.

There is something to be said for “assume the worst” when it comes to defects in administration appointments and extensions. The court has taken this approach in a few cases where, rather than trying to work out the intricacies and effect of a defect on an appointment or extension, it has assumed the worst (i.e invalidity) and made a retrospective order to remedy the position.

It has been a while since we have had any cases challenging the fairness of a CVA, but in this recent Scottish decision where HMRC challenged the approval of Petrofac’s CVA on the basis of fairness, the court was required to consider HMRC’s contention that the CVA unfairly prejudiced its interests.

For reasons explained in this blog, they did not in the case of Conway and others v Plass and others [2025] EWHC 2625 (Ch) but there could be situations where it might.

In Conway and others v Plass and others, the High Court has provided guidance on when contract liabilities incurred by administrators will be treated as administration expenses under the Lundy Granite principle.

Factual Background

An insolvency practitioner (IP) can pursue a wide range of claims when appointed as the administrator or liquidator of a company. 

These include claims that already existed at the point that the company entered an insolvency process (Pre-existing Company Claims), and ones that arise on insolvency (IP Claims see below).

An IP pursues Pre-existing Company Claims as agent for and in the name of the company, and these types of claims typically include claims for debt, breach of contract, breach of duty or recovery of property.

In Re Petrofac Ltd [2025] EWHC 2887 (Ch), the English High Court made an administration order in relation to a Jersey-incorporated company even though its registered office was not in England which is the starting point for determining COMI and therefore the Court’s jurisdiction to make such an order.

Background

Despite meeting statutory jurisdictional requirements under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006, the High Court declined to exercise its discretion in favour of sanctioning Waldorf Production UK Plc’s restructuring plan in August 2025due to concerns about fair allocation of value and lack of meaningful engagement with unsecured creditors.

On insolvency, the pari passu principle applies, meaning unsecured creditors rank equally in the distribution of available assets. That principle helps explain why a creditor who has obtained a judgment debt but has not completed enforcement (for instance by obtaining a final charging order) will usually be barred from doing so once insolvency intervenes.