HMRC versus Restructuring Plans (UK)

By Rachael Markham on May 26, 2026 Posted in UK

When Waldorf Production UK Plc returned to court with its second restructuring plan in a year, the primary opposition it faced was from HMRC who voted against the plan. Mr Justice Green ultimately sanctioned the plan, cramming down the liabilities owed to HMRC but the judgment provides some helpful insight into the position taken by HMRC and is helpful more generally in framing the approach and considerations for other plan proponents when dealing with HMRC as a creditor.

Why Was a Restructuring Plan Proposed?

Waldorf’s liquidity issues were largely driven by Energy Profits Levy (EPL) liabilities which exceeded £69 million. Following Waldorf’s failed restructuring plan in 2025, this second plan, and the success of it, relied on an offer by Harbour Energy to buy most of the group for US$205 million. However, the offer to buy was premised on the the EPL liabilities being compromised.

Waldorf represented that if the plan was not approved a formal insolvency was likely (the Relevant Alternative) in which unsecured creditors—including HMRC—would receive around 0.1% of their claims. Under the plan, HMRC would however receive 14% of its claim.

HMRC voted against the plan, but with other creditors supporting it, the Court had to consider at the sanction hearing, whether to exercise its discretionary power to cram down the plan on HMRC in the face of its opposition. Why did HMRC oppose the plan?

Can Cannabis Companies File Bankruptcy? The New Chapter 15 Roadmap

By Mark Salzberg and Katherine Catanese on May 19, 2026 Posted in US

Have the doors to U.S. Bankruptcy courts finally swung open to cannabis companies? Perhaps, but still in only very limited circumstances involving a foreign debtor. Nonetheless, Judge Brendan Shannon’s recent order granting recognition of a Canadian insolvency proceeding [1] filed by a cannabis company is the first crack in the door that many bankruptcy professionals have been waiting for and may provide a roadmap for future cannabis restructurings in the U.S.

(UK) IPs with residential tenanted properties on your cases – have you sent an Information Sheet to tenants? Time is running out

By Rachael Markham on May 13, 2026 Posted in UK

The Renters Rights Act 2025 (Act), which came into force on 1 May 2026 aims to give private tenants greater security and protection from eviction, in many respects aligning the position with business tenants who are in occupation under a protected business tenancy.

For insolvency practitioners (IPs) appointed as administrators or liquidators of a business with real estate assets that have residential tenants in situ, the changes introduced by the Act are important to understand, not least because they enhance the rights of tenants, change the grounds on which a landlord can obtain possession of a property and place new or additional obligations on a landlord.

Revisiting Limitation Periods in Insolvency Claims Post Zedra

By Kathryn Griffiths on May 11, 2026 Posted in UK

Whilst the Supreme Court’s decision in THG Plc v Zedra Trust Company (Jersey) Ltd [2026] UKSC 6 provides clarity on the application of limitation periods in unfair prejudice claims, it raises fresh questions for certain insolvency claims that have traditionally been thought to have limitation periods.

Building Liability Orders: Group Exposure, Insolvency and Legacy Building Safety Claims

By Paul O’Kane on April 30, 2026 Posted in UK

The Building Safety Act 2022 introduced sweeping changes to address this country’s building safety failures exposed by Grenfell. One of its most significant and arguably most revolutionary remedies introduced by the Act is the Building Liability Order, or BLO, designed to prevent relevant building safety liabilities being left behind in undercapitalised project companies while associated companies remain beyond reach.

In broad terms, a BLO allows the High Court to make one company jointly and severally liable for certain building safety liabilities of another company in the same corporate group or association structure where it is “just and equitable” to do so. That matters because development and construction projects are routinely carried out through special purpose vehicles or specialist operating companies with limited covenant strength. The BLO regime is intended to prevent relevant building safety liabilities from being stranded in those entities where associated companies remain within reach.

The decision in Crest Nicholson Regeneration Ltd & Ors v Ardmore Construction Ltd (In Administration) & Ors [2026] EWHC 789 (TCC) is therefore important. It is only the second case to consider the “just and equitable” test for a BLO and it does so in the context of a contractor in administration. Crest sought both an anticipatory BLO and an adjudication BLO following an adjudication award of around £14.9 million against Ardmore Construction Ltd.

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.