Purdue Doesn’t Stop Chapter 15 Recognition and Enforcement of Third-Party Releases

By Jeffrey N. Rothleder on April 17, 2026 Posted in Cross Border, US

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.

Crédito Real S.A.B. DE C.V., SOFOM, E.N.R. (“Crédito Real”) was one of Mexico’s largest non-banking financial lending institutions. In 2021, Crédito Real experienced a liquidity crisis and commenced negotiations with its creditors. The negotiations, which were long and drawn out, ultimately resulted in a restructuring support agreement (the “RSA”). The RSA provided for, among other things, a prepackaged restructuring proceeding in Mexico under Mexican law and recognition of that proceeding and the approved restructuring plan in the U.S. under Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code. Under the Mexican proceeding, Crédito Real obtained court approval of its restructuring plan (the “Plan”). The Plan, which was supported by the creditors, contained releases of third-party claims and causes of action as permitted under Mexican law (the “Release”).

Defects in Administration Appointments and Extensions – Assume the worst and remedy on that basis?(UK)

By Rachael Markham on April 9, 2026 Posted in UK

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.

There is much to be said for this approach, which stems from the Bradford Bulls case – saving time and cost in working out whether a defect has caused an invalid appointment or extension, and proceeding on the assumption it does.

In the case of Quantuma Advisory Limited and others v Colin Mear Ltd and another [2025] EWHC 3580 (Ch) the court was asked to not only confirm the validity of the original appointment but also to make a “Bradford Bulls Order” in light of potential defects with the administration extensions.

The applications in this case concerned two companies that had been placed into administration by their directors – Colin Mear Ltd and Colin Mear Engineering Ltd. Both companies had a qualifying floating charge holder (QFCH) which at the date of appointment of administrators was in liquidation and Irish liquidators had been appointed.

The EU Takes a Major Step Toward Harmonised Insolvency Rules

By Rachael Markham and John Alderton on March 31, 2026 Posted in Cross Border, EU, UK

The Council of the European Union has just given the green light to a new EU Law that aims to bring consistency to key aspects of insolvency rules across Member States.

For years, businesses and investors have had to navigate a patchwork of national regimes—each with its own procedures, timelines, and quirks. The new Directive marks a significant shift toward a more predictable and efficient regime.

By introducing common standards, the rules aim to maximise creditor recoveries and streamline insolvency proceedings, strengthening confidence in capital markets —something seen as vital for long‑term competitiveness.

What’s Changing?

A Holistic Approach to Fairness in CVAs? (UK)

By Rachael Markham on March 31, 2026 Posted in UK

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.

In The Advocate General for Scotland for an order under section 6(4) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (Court of Session) [2026] CSOH 29 (25 March 2026) Lord Sandison distances himself from the approach that has been taken by the English courts when considering whether a creditor has been unfairly prejudiced – preferring a broader, fairness-based approach.

The EU AI Act and EU Insolvency Law

By Andreas Fillmann on March 30, 2026 Posted in Cross Border, EU

The increasing deployment of artificial intelligence in economic decision-making processes is progressively affecting insolvency-related contexts. The EU AI Act establishes a harmonised regulatory framework across the European Union; while it does not bring about any direct changes to substantive insolvency law, it fundamentally redefines the legal requirements for the use of algorithmic systems in insolvency-related contexts. The Act does not aim to control specific industries but rather follows a risk-based approach that focuses on the potential impact of AI systems on fundamental rights and economic participation.

When does an administration end? The effect of a para 84(4) notice (UK)

By Rachael Markham on March 3, 2026 Posted in UK

In Wonop ApS v Jagger (as joint administrator of FAI Realisations 2024 Ltd) [2026] EWHC 362 (Ch) the High Court was required to consider the effect of filing a notice under paragraph 84(4) of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 – specifically, whether the registration of such a notice operates automatically to bring an administration to an end.

Although the factual background was unusual, Judge Briggs’ decision provides helpful clarity for insolvency practitioners and creditors alike as to when an administration comes to an end (and discharge from office takes effect).

UK Court Considers the Scope of Provisional Liquidators Powers to Sell the Company’s Assets

By Rachael Markham on February 26, 2026 Posted in UK

The powers of provisional liquidators are generally as set out in the order appointing them. In longer running provisional liquidations, this can lead to multiple trips to court by the provisional liquidators to extend or confirm powers.

In Re Versilia Solutions Limited[1] the High Court considered the scope of provisional liquidators’ powers in circumstances where, following appointment, they sold certain of the company’s assets without first having made an application to court to confirm that the order that appointed them covered that sale or for an order extending their powers if it did not.

Although determining that the powers given to the provisional liquidators gave authority to make the sale in this particular case (and therefore the court did not need to ratify it) the judge observed that the decision did not give provisional liquidators carte blanche to do the same in other cases, and the better way to proceed was to apply to court ahead of the sale.

A Cautionary Tale for Insolvency Practitioners Seeking Possession of Company Property (UK)

By Jenny Cooper on February 10, 2026 Posted in UK

The recent High Court decision in Maher and another v Investalet Ltd [2025] EWHC 3133 (Ch) serves as a critical reminder for insolvency practitioners about the importance of choosing the correct procedural route when seeking possession of property. It is an important case for insolvency practitioners dealing with intermediate landlords and unauthorised occupiers.

In this case, the court held that section 234 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA 1986”) cannot be used to force trespassers to give up possession of a property. This is because a trespasser’s possessory title is not the type of property that can be paid, delivered, conveyed, surrendered or transferred under section 234 IA 1986.

UK High Court Considers Officeholders Request for Company Documentation on a Forever Basis Affirming the Need for Reasonableness

By Kathryn Griffiths on February 10, 2026 Posted in UK

The High Court has dismissed the liquidators’ appeal in Webb & another (as joint liquidators of Eversholt Rail (365) Ltd (in liquidation) v another company [2026] EWHC 101 (Ch), reaffirming that requests for information under section 235 and 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 must be reasonable.

Sections 235 and 236 enable officeholders to uncover the true facts of the company’s business and dealings by empowering the court to compel both individuals who have acted for or been employed by the company (section 235) and third parties (section 236) to provide company documentation and information.

The appeal arises from the liquidation of Eversholt Rail (365) Ltd (“Eversholt”). On appointment, the liquidators were faced with a company with no employees and virtually no documentation, as Eversholt relied on services provided by its sister company, Eversholt Rail Ltd (“ERL”), under a well-established service agreement.

As such the liquidators sought an order pursuant to section 236 requiring ERL and ERL’s solicitors to deliver “copies of all documents…. relating to the business, dealings, affairs or property” of Eversholt. This request was referred to by court as an ‘everything forever’ request, reflecting its breadth and lack of defined limits as to category, time period or purpose.

The application was dismissed at first instance. Judge Burton held that sections 235 and 236 require applicants to show the request is reasonably required and therefore dismissed the broad request because it was unjustified and unnecessary.

On appeal, the liquidators advanced 10 grounds of appeal, but their case ultimately rested on two core propositions:

that the purpose of section 236 is to give liquidators access to all information needed to reconstitute the company’s state of knowledge; or,
alternatively, that an everything forever request, without any additional justifications, was reasonable in the circumstances, where virtually all documentation is held by a third party.

The appeal was dismissed.

Administration Extensions and Creditor Consent: Timing Matters (UK)

By Shayan Haider on February 9, 2026 Posted in UK

The recent decision in CDI Realisations Limited is a short one, but it sits against a much longer-running debate about creditor consent for administration extensions and, in particular, when creditor status should be assessed for these purposes.

While the facts of CDI are relatively straightforward, the decision is a useful addition to the growing body of authority and guidance that points towards a pragmatic, interest-based approach to consent under Schedule B1.