Renters’ Rights Act 2025: The Property Database and What Insolvency Practitioners Need to Know (UK)

By Chris Paschali and Samuel Baines on October 26, 2026 Posted in UK

The government has published further detail on the forthcoming “Register your rental property” service, which forms part of the second phase of implementation of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 (RRA). The service will require landlords of qualifying residential properties to register both themselves and their rental properties and includes specific provisions for insolvency office holders.

Which properties must be registered?

The registration requirement will apply to landlords of assured and regulated tenancies but also to insolvency practitioners (IPs) may find themselves ‘standing in the shoes’ of a landlord in a number of circumstances, for example:

trustees in bankruptcy, when taking control of the former property of the bankrupt, which may include a tenanted residential property;
administrators or liquidators of companies which operate(d) as landlords to residential tenants; or
receivers appointed over residential property, with a view to achieving a sale.

Congress Permanently Raises the Subchapter V Debt Limit and Awaits President’s Signature: A Significant Victory for Small Business Reorganizations

By Jeff Cope and Kyle Arendsen on October 8, 2026 Posted in US

Congress has taken a significant step to expand access to bankruptcy relief for small businesses by permanently increasing the debt eligibility limit for Subchapter V of chapter 11. The legislation, known as the Bankruptcy Threshold Adjustment Act (H.R. 7730), raises the Subchapter V debt ceiling from approximately $3.4 million to $7.5 million.

Once signed by the President, H.R. 7730 will end several years of uncertainty surrounding Subchapter V eligibility, which is a powerful tool for small business owners to reorganize under chapter 11 and maintain ownership in their business. The legislation is a welcome boon for thousands of small businesses struggling with debt, rising borrowing costs, and economic pressures.

How Landlords are Treated under Restructuring Plans Compared to CVAs (UK)

By Louie Hunkin and Vanessa Stuart on October 2, 2026 Posted in UK

The use of formal restructuring procedures to reduce lease liabilities is nothing new. For many years, retailers and hospitality businesses relied on Company Voluntary Arrangements (“CVAs”) to reduce rents, compromise arrears and exit underperforming sites. Since the introduction of Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006, attention has focussed on how Restructuring Plans (“RPs”) can be used to achieve similar outcomes as part of a wider operational and financial restructuring.

The landmark decision in Re Virgin Active Holdings Ltd, Virgin Active Ltd and Virgin Active Health Clubs Ltd [2021] EWHC 1246 (Ch) (“Virgin Active“) demonstrated that a restructuring plan could be used to compromise multiple classes of landlords and, crucially, that dissenting landlord classes could be bound through cross-class cram down. Five years later, the recent case of Re TG Jones High Street Limited [2026] EWHC 2079 (Ch) (“TG Jones”) provides an opportunity to consider how landlord treatment under RPs has evolved and how that compares with the position previously established under landlord CVAs.

Court of Appeal confirms that the challenge to the validity of appointment of administrators will be determined at trial (UK)

By Helena Clarke and Chris Neale on September 10, 2026 Posted in UK

The decision of the Court of Appeal in Glint Pay Ltd. v Baker[1]has opened the door to scrutiny of appointers’ purposes when making out of court appointments of administrators. Whether the appointment was motivated by improper purposes in this case remains to be seen, but the potential impact on administrations more widely has the potential to be significant.

BACKGROUND

Glint Pay Ltd is the holding company of each of Glint Pay Services Ltd and Glint Pay UK Ltd (together “Glint”). As an initial startup business, Glint developed and promoted an app that provided users with the ability to buy and spend gold (and silver) using a standard debit card.

UK Supreme Court confirms creditors’ ability to rely on unrecognised foreign judgments in bankruptcy proceedings

By Samuel Baines and Deborah Brown on August 24, 2026 Posted in Cross Border, UK

The case of Valeriy Ernestovich Drelle v Service-Terminal LLC[1] has, over recent years, caused lots of debate over whether unrecognised, unregistrable foreign judgments could form the basis of a bankruptcy petition pursuant to sections 267 and 268 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“Act”). On 27 July 2026, the Supreme Court finally put that debate to rest and unanimously held that they can. The ruling means that certain creditors can now rely upon certain foreign judgment debts as the basis for English bankruptcy proceedings, even when other enforcement tools are not available to them.

Background

Servis-Terminal LLC (“ST“) is a Russian company which, in April 2017, was declared bankrupt, with Mr Sergey Lisin appointed as trustee in bankruptcy.

In May 2019, ST obtained a judgment from the Arbitrazh Court of the Yaroslavl Region against ST’s former director, Valeriy Drelle (“Mr Drelle“), requiring Mr Drelle to pay approximately RUB 2 billion in compensation (“Judgment“). Mr Drelle submitted various appeals, all of which were dismissed and, in 2020 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation concluded that he had no further grounds of appeal.

When will the English Court assist officeholders with remuneration applications?

By Devinder Singh and Vanessa Stuart on August 19, 2026 Posted in UK

The court was asked to assist the joint liquidators of Float Capital[1] (the Company) in circumstances where it was inappropriate to seek creditor approval under Part 18 of the Rules. This was because the majority creditor of the Company, PTC, was in administration and, Mr Bouchier, one of the liquidators of the Company was also one of the joint administrators of PTC. The court agreed that in those circumstances, it was correct for the liquidators to apply to court.

Board Dissent in the Twilight Zone: Saxon Woods, Sequana and the Limits of Unilateral Action (UK)

By Christopher Roberts and Chris Paschali on August 19, 2026 Posted in UK

The UK Supreme Court’s decision in Saxon Woods Investments Ltd v Costa [2026] UKSC 21 is not an insolvency case. However, it has important implications for directors of financially distressed companies and for office-holders assessing potential claims against former directors.

The decision addresses a recurring dilemma: what can a director do when they genuinely believe the board is pursuing the wrong strategy?

The Court’s answer on the facts was clear. A director may challenge assumptions, seek further information and advice, express dissent and vote against the majority. What a director cannot do is use delegated authority or control information covertly to implement a strategy which the board has not approved.

Read alongside BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA [2022] UKSC 25, Saxon Woods helps clarify both whose interests directors must consider as insolvency approaches and how disagreements within the boardroom must be handled.

What happened in Saxon Woods?

Serving notice to appoint an administrator to a qualifying floating charge holder outside the jurisdiction: the tension in the Insolvency Rules and the CPR (UK)

By Monika Lorenzo-Perez and Raphaelle Driver on August 10, 2026 Posted in UK

The court’s finding in Vybra Solutions Ltd, Re [2026] EWHC 1125 (CH) (“Re Vybra”) highlights a conflict between the Insolvency Rules 2016 (the “Rules”) and the CPR. The decision that permission to serve outside the jurisdiction was not needed does not sit comfortably with the Rules. In the case, the Court also gave permission to serve a notice of intention to appoint administrators on a qualifying floating charge holder (“QFCH”) to an address that was different to the registered address.

Trading on a failed company’s name? UK High Court clarifies the scope of the exceptions to liability under Section 216 (UK)

By Monika Lorenzo-Perez and Chris Paschali on July 30, 2026 Posted in UK

S216(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986 restricts former directors of insolvent companies from being involved with companies or businesses using a prohibited name for five years following an insolvent liquidation.

S216(3) provides that, unless leave is granted by the court or one of the statutory exceptions applies, a person who was a director of a company at any time in the 12 months before it entered insolvent liquidation must not, for five years from the date of liquidation, be a director of a company that is known by a “prohibited name”, be concerned in or take part in the formation, promotion or management of a company or carry on a business under the “prohibited name”. A prohibited name is the name that the liquidated company was known as within 12 months prior to its liquidation, or a name so similar that it suggests an association with the liquidated company. The restriction does not apply where the court grants leave under section 216(3), or if one of the exceptions contained in Rule 22.4, 22.6 or 22.7 of the Insolvency Rules 2016 applies. Breach of section 216 can result in criminal sanctions, and may also expose the individual to personal liability for the debts incurred by the company while acting in contravention of the section.

One of the statutory exceptions is contained in Rule 22.7. This permits the use of a prohibited name where the company using the name (or a name suggesting an association with the liquidated company) had been known by that name throughout the 12 months ending on the day before the liquidated company entered into liquidation, and had not been dormant during that 12-month period.

Excluded Lenders Prevail – Pro-Rata Sharing Provision in Serta Applies to Cashless Debt-for-Debt Exchange

By Patrick Maney and Kyle Arendsen on July 28, 2026 Posted in US

On remand from the Fifth Circuit, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas (the “Court”) held in the Serta Simmons Bedding (“Serta”) liability management exercise (“LME”)[1] dispute that a credit agreement’s pro-rata sharing provision applied to noncash payments, in this case, a debt-for-debt exchange, and not solely to cash payments. The Serta Court held that a majority of first lien term holders who participated in the uptier liability management transaction (the “Participating Lenders”) breached this provision by receiving greater than their pro rata share of the exchange loans and failing to purchase participations from certain minority first lien holders who were excluded from the uptier transaction (the “Excluded Lenders”). Ultimately, the Court entered a judgment in favor of the Excluded Lenders for $161.5 million. Sponsors and lenders participating in an LME should carefully review Serta to avoid making the same costly errors.