The High Court has recently provided clarity on whether liquidators, or the firms supporting them, can limit their liability when acting in a Members’ Voluntary Liquidation (MVL). The case of Pagden[1] confirms that while firms supporting liquidators may be able to limit liability in certain circumstances, liquidators themselves cannot.… Continue Reading
New guidance is the latest in a move to iron out the practical wrinkles from Part 26 and 26A of the Companies Act 2006. On 18 September 2025, the Chancellor of the High Court published a revised Practice Statement regarding Schemes of Arrangement and Restructuring Plans (the “Practice Statement”). This follows a consultation on a … Continue Reading
The ability to cram down dissenting creditors in a Restructuring Plan (RP) is a helpful tool to ensure that a proposed restructuring is not derailed. But ultimately the power rests with the court in deciding whether to cram down an RP on dissenting creditors.… Continue Reading
In the High Court decision of Pagden v Ridgley [2025] EWHC 2674 (Ch), Mr Justice Foxton considered an appeal from a decision by ICC Judge Greenwood, who previously dismissed a challenge to the fees charged by an administrator for selling land subject to a fixed charge.… Continue Reading
On 8 October 2025, the Court approved a significant milestone in the long-running insolvency proceedings of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE). After 17 years in administration, the Court granted an order terminating the administrators’ appointments and paving the way for LBIE to enter a members’ voluntary liquidation (MVL).… Continue Reading
The High Court has refused to use its discretion to sanction a restructuring plan proposed by Waldorf Production UK Plc (Waldorf or the Company) which entailed a cramdown of the company’s unsecured creditors pursuant to Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006. Background Waldorf (and its wider group) are engaged in the exploration and production … Continue Reading
HMRC has issued new guidance explaining its expectations for the proportionate and appropriate use of Notices of Intended Dividends (NOIDs) in an MVL in light of what it says are challenges created by practitioners issuing a NOID at the start of an MVL where doing so might be inappropriate. … Continue Reading
In a short, but helpful judgment the court considered whether the stay imposed by s130(2) of the IA 1986 on actions or proceedings against a company in liquidation applied to a secured creditor exercising its power of sale. In confirming that it did not, the court outlined the purpose behind that provision and considered what … Continue Reading
The ability to fund insolvency litigation can make a significant difference to realisations in an insolvent estate. Although many claims are now assigned to specialist funders (where the funder both runs and funds the claim) some insolvency practitioners have (at least until the Supreme Court decision in PACCAR came along) used litigation funding agreements (LFAs) … Continue Reading
The Court of Appeal has handed down judgment in the Petrofac restructuring plan, overturning the sanctioning of the plans by the High Court. This is only the third time a restructuring plan has been considered by the Court of Appeal, in this blog we focus in on some of the key points of interest for … Continue Reading
In the recent judgment of Brooke Homes (Bicester) Ltd v Portfolio Property Partners Ltd (and others)[1], the High Court provided further clarity on how sale proceeds should be accounted for as between the first-ranking mortgagee and a second-ranking secured creditor.… Continue Reading
The Court of Appeal decision in Carvill‑Biggs & Anor v Reading [2025] EWCA Civ 619, clarifies the scope and application of section 234 of the Insolvency Act 1986, which empowers an office-holder to compel the delivery up of company property or documents from third parties, in relation to mortgaged land. This blog considers the unique … Continue Reading
Judge Agnello in a recent court decision[1] concluded that a company must pay its debts within the period of 12 months from the start of an MVL, and if it does not, the liquidator is obliged to convert the MVL to a company voluntary liquidation (CVL).… Continue Reading
The Insolvency Service have held a long-established view that creditors are classed as such at the point of entry into an insolvency process. This view was brought into question and challenged in the cases of Pindar and Toogood where in essence the judges (after considering the definition of secured creditor in s248 of the Insolvency … Continue Reading
Since the cases of Avanti and UKCloud we have seen more arguments around the classification of a charge – is a typical floating charge asset actually subject to a fixed charge? Is a fixed charge really floating? Much depends on the control the charge holder asserts, but we have seen some novel claims. The position … Continue Reading
In the recent appeal of Yerbury v Azets[1], the Court reiterated that an employer of an LPA receiver cannot be held vicariously liable for the actions of a receiver during a receivership and helpfully clarified the parameters of the receiver’s role by virtue of their appointment. In this blog, we delve further into the High … Continue Reading
The recent High Court case of Stacks Living Limited & Ors v Shergill & Ors (“Stacks Decision”) has further highlighted the importance of taking advice and documenting decisions following the much-publicised decision of Wright v Chappell (the “BHS Case”).… Continue Reading
On 14 November 2024, the UK government announced several changes to its existing sanctions regulations via the Sanctions (EU Exit) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 2024. As of 14 May 2025, by expanding the definition of “relevant firms” subject to financial sanctions reporting, Insolvency Practitioners (“IPs”) are now legally required to adhere to reporting obligations … Continue Reading
As insolvency practitioners (IPs) it is not unusual to have to consider the terms of a particular contract, whether that is enforcing the terms of that for the insolvent entity or considering the rights of the third party as against the company, and in some cases, it is necessary for IPs to enter into a … Continue Reading
We have seen an increasing number of contested restructuring plans (RPs) over the last quarter. With a notable shift of RPs into the litigation arena, and some gentle push back from the judiciary about timetabling and use of court time the judiciary has published a draft practice statement for consultation outlining new case management requirements … Continue Reading
Much will depend on the specifics of a company’s financial position, but there are some themes from the OutsideClinic and Enzen judgments that are helpful – and arguably so even beyond the context of RPs for a company’s managing its relationship with HMRC. Is HMRC in or out of the money? In OutsideClinic HMRC had … Continue Reading
S423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) provides a route for office holders to challenge transactions where a person deliberately transfers assets at an undervalue to put them beyond the reach of creditors. The Supreme Court in El-Husseiny and another (Appellants) v Invest Bank PSC (Respondent) [2025] UKSC 4 recently confirmed what is meant … Continue Reading
The Outside Clinic restructuring plan (RP) was sanctioned last week with HMRC voting in favour of it. In a similar vein to Enzen (see our earlier blog) HMRC initially indicated that it was not inclined to support the plan, but, after negotiating a higher return following the convening hearing, it voted in favour of it. A … Continue Reading
You may have read our previous blog about the Outside Clinic Restructuring Plan (RP) which asked whether 5p was enough to cram down HMRC and thought, well surely if that’s not enough, 10p would work? The Enzen Restructuring Plans (RPs) that were sanctioned this week also sought to compromise HMRC’s secondary preferential debt proposing a … Continue Reading
