To those familiar with both U.S. and Australian insolvency regimes, Australia's creditors' scheme of arrangement (Scheme) may appear, at first glance, to resemble a Chapter 11 restructuring in disguise. This is because both regimes facilitate creditor compromise, allow incumbent management to remain in control, involve court supervision and rely on class-based voting structures to approve a restructuring outcome.

It is well understood that Australia's voluntary administration regime provides companies and their administrators with significant flexibility to promote business restructurings. This is in large part due to the statutory moratorium afforded to insolvent companies, allowing breathing space for the administrator to work with relevant stakeholders to promote a sale and/or restructuring via a deed of company arrangement.

In recent years, we have seen the deed of company arrangement or "DOCA" being used in Australia by sophisticated investors as a restructuring tool of choice. This is primarily due to the swiftness in which a DOCA can be implemented and its flexibility to effect a broad range of restructuring transactions with relative ease.

On 18 September 2025, the Chancellor of the High Court, the Rt. Hon. Sir Julian Flaux announced the long-awaited publication of the updated Practice Statement in relation to schemes of arrangement and restructuring plans (the "New Practice Statement"). Revision of the existing Practice Statement was, in large part, driven by the rise in contested schemes and restructuring plans which, in turn, has put significant pressure on the Court system.

On 12 January 2019, the Italian Government enacted Legislative Decree No. 14 (so called "business crisis and insolvency code (codice della crisi d’impresa e dell’insolvenza)", which entered into force on 15 July 2022 (the "Insolvency Code").

The Insolvency Code provides for, inter alia, the following:

Recently, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom released its judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA¹. This marks the first occasion on which the nature, scope and content of directors' duties to creditors when a company is nearing insolvency (the "Creditor Duty") has been considered by the Supreme Court.

Last week, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom released its judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA. This marks the first occasion on which the nature, scope and content of directors' duties to creditors when a company is nearing insolvency (the "Creditor Duty") has been considered by the Supreme Court.

While the timing of competing English and German insolvency applications in Re Galapagos allowed for clear determination of jurisdiction under the UK Insolvency Regulation, there remains potential uncertainty as to how similar competing applications made following 31 December 2020 will be resolved in the post-Brexit environment.

Background

Historically, the French restructuring system has always been perceived as a debtor-friendly system. In recent years, however, changes to the French legislation have favoured creditors' interests and the courts have favoured a number of lender-led restructures, enabling lenders to take control of the debtor from its existing shareholders.

The economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic led to a wave of creditor schemes of arrangement ("schemes") and restructuring plans ("RPs") in the second half of 2020, which shows no sign of abating in 2021. For the uninitiated, the scheme (a long-established tool) and the newer RP process are court led UK restructuring options that a company can use to bind a minority of creditors into a restructuring. An RP can also be used to "cram down" an entire dissenting creditor class into a deal where certain conditions are met.