Approval of Administrators’ Proposals: What to do if the administrators’ proposals are not approved? (UK)

By Kathryn Griffiths on February 5, 2026 Posted in UK

When a company enters administration, the administrators must set out proposals explaining how they intend to achieve the purpose of the administration, but what happens when creditors refuse to approve those proposals? A recent decision in Re PPE Medpro Limited (in Administration) [2025] EWHC 3449 (Ch) (“PPE Medpro”) provides important clarification.

The Statutory Framework

Paragraph 49(1) of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “IA86”) requires an administrator to produce proposals explaining how the relevant statutory purpose of the administration is to be achieved. Those proposals must be put to creditors for approval.

Where creditors fail to approve the proposals or a revision of the proposals, paragraph 55 of Schedule B1 to the IA86 provides that, upon the administrator reporting the outcome to the court, the court may:

provide that the appointment of an administrator shall cease to have effect from a specified time;
adjourn the hearing conditionally or unconditionally;
make an interim order;
make an order on a petition for winding up suspended by virtue of paragraph 40(1)(b); or
make any other order that the court thinks appropriate.

Are administrators required to apply for court directions where a proposal is rejected?

Think Before You WhatsApp – a Reminder of the Legal Consequences of Casual Communications (UK)

By Rachael Markham on February 2, 2026 Posted in UK

In a world where it is much more common to send someone a text, a WhatsApp message, email or other electronic communication, than type a letter or put pen to paper, the Court does find itself now and again considering how the digital ways of communicating interact with laws that were introduced way before the concept of sending someone an instant message were even contemplated.

Although the case of Reid-Roberts v Mei-Lin [2026] EWHC 49 (Ch) considered WhatsApp messages in the context of personal insolvency, the decision is of wider interest to insolvency practitioners (IPs) as a reminder that more casual ways of communicating could have legal consequences – both for them and when considering the asset position on an insolvency.

UK court confirms that the lonely soliloquies of one cannot be a meeting when considering Argo Blockchain’s Restructuring Plan (UK)

By Rebecca Terrace on February 2, 2026 Posted in UK

Following our previous blog Revolution Bars: When is a meeting really a meeting?” Mr Justice Hildyard has, in Re Argo Blockchain Plc[1], affirmed the position that a creditor can only approve a restructuring plan (“RP”) if at least 75% in value of a class of creditors, present and voting either in person or by proxy at the meeting, vote in favour. A single chairman holding proxies for two or more creditors does not constitute a valid meeting for the purpose of approving a RP and, irrespective of the proxy vote, the class will be treated as dissenting.

(UK) When and Why should an Officeholder Consent to Employee Claims?

By Rachael Markham on January 29, 2026 Posted in UK

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT)[1] upheld an employment tribunal’s decision that the claimant, Mr Chaudhry, could not recover a basic award for unfair dismissal following their employer’s insolvency unless an employment tribunal had determined the claim and made an award.

Why is this relevant to administrators? Because for an employee to bring a claim the administrator must give permission for the employee to bring or continue such a claim given the existence of the moratorium. The question this decision helps clarify, is whether administrators should do as a matter of course. It also helps clarify, that for employees, they need the employment tribunal to determine a claim for unfair dismissal in order to make any recoveries following the employer company entering administration.

Reflections on 2025 and Predictions for 2026 (UK)

By Rachael Markham on January 5, 2026 Posted in UK

At the beginning of 2025 we shared our predictions on what we expected to see in the R&I market over the course of the year. How did we do?

Waldorf’s Withdrawal: Why It Matters (UK)

By Charlotte Møller and Rachael Markham on December 15, 2025 Posted in UK

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.

Waldorf then sought and was granted permission to “leapfrog” its appeal directly to the Supreme Court. The progress of this appeal was being closely tracked by industry professionals as it offered the possibility of Supreme Court clarification around how the issue of fairness should be approached. However, restructuring professionals are destined for disappointment on this front, with news now out that Waldorf has withdrawn its appeal. This means that the Court of Appeal’s trilogy of cases—Adler, Petrofac, and Thames Water—now stand as the definitive authority on fairness in restructuring plans.

So how do plan companies approach the question of fairness and the fair allocation of the benefits generated by the plan? The principles that apply are these:

The District Court for the Southern District of New York Deems Third-Party Releases Non-Consensual under State and Federal Law [US]

By Kelly Singer on December 8, 2025 Posted in US

On December 1, 2025, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Honorable Denise Cote) entered an opinion and order that struck third-party releases and a related injunction in a confirmed Chapter 11 Plan (the “Plan”) for the In re Gol Linhas Aéreas Inteligentes S.A., et al. bankruptcy cases (Case No. 24-10118, Bankr. S.D.N.Y.).

When Might an Interim Charging Order Become Final Following an Intervening Insolvency? (UK)

By Joevondeep Kullar on December 8, 2025 Posted in UK

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. A charging order remains interim only and cannot “jump the queue.” Yet in Stacks Living, the Court did precisely that. It made an interim charging order final notwithstanding intervening bankruptcy under Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA 1986”).

This blog considers why the creditor was effectively allowed to bypass the pari passu principle.

Despite being a personal insolvency case, the reasoning will also be relevant to liquidations given that the statutory provisions are essentially the same.

(UK) Does the act of closing out pre-administration customer contracts create a liability expense?

By Tom Leverett on December 8, 2025 Posted in UK

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.

Re:Petrofac Ltd – Jersey Company granted administration order by English Courts

By Sabina Khan on December 1, 2025 Posted in UK

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

Petrofac Limited (the Company) is the holding company in a wider corporate group (together with the Company, the Group), which is a leading international service provider to the energy industry. The Company, although incorporated in Jersey, made an application for an administration order in the English Courts.

As Mr Justice Richards noted in his judgment, the administration application was “the most recent instalment in a somewhat tortuous and winding road for the Company in relation to its debt”. The Company, together with another Group entity, had previously launched a Part 26A Restructuring Plan, which was sanctioned at first instance, however, later reversed by the Court of Appeal. The Company then sought to raise funds via the sale of its business (or part thereof) to senior creditors via a pre-pack administration. The latter was, however, derailed when a key contract was terminated by one of its counterparties, TenneT. Payment and collateral demands subsequently ensued from creditors of the Company, which it was unable to meet, leading to the application for an administration order before the English Court.