Here is our summary of key developments relevant to restructuring professionals that you might have missed, with links for further information.
The Court of Appeal in TAQA (TAQA Bratani Ltd & Ors v Fujairah Oil and Gas UK LLC & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 1669 (19 December 2025)) recently considered the meaning of “transaction” for the purposes of a s238 of the Insolvency Act 1986. Our blog explains what the decision means for officeholders in light of the court’s findings in relation to the meaning of transaction and the scope of the statutory defence in s238(5)(b)
Our next insolvency litigation quick guide: Limitation Periods on Corporate Insolvency Claims is now available in our Thought Leadership library. This explores the typical limitation periods for different types of corporate insolvency claims and provides various options for IPs to consider when approaching the expiry of a limitation period – worth taking a look.
The Insolvency (England and Wales) (Amendment) Rules 2026 makes several minor changes to the Insolvency Rules 2016 (Rules) with effect from 22 June. Many of the changes were those announced by the Insolvency Service and although not significant, are helpful. We explain the practical impact here. The most recent special edition Dear IP 171 explains the reason for the changes.
However, what is likely to be significant, is the forthcoming Rules review. With a consultation paper expected before Summer, now is the time to sharpen pencils and make some noise about any changes/clarity required to make the rules work better in practice. We know there are some that create real issues in practice.
Given the duties of both IPs and solicitors as officers of the court, it is helpful to flag this judgment, which provides a salutatory warning about ensuring that there are robust procedures in place for using AI (and checking the responses it provides) given that many firms use it (to a lesser or greater extent) to support their business.
Businesses in construction have been one of the hardest hit sectors in recent months/years – not helped by the fallout from the Grenfell disaster and the legislation that (understandably) was put in place following that. The responsibility for remedying liabilities does, however, reach far beyond those immediately responsible as this recent case highlights, extending into the wider group and associated companies.
The Joint Insolvency Committee (JIC) has launched a consultation on proposed updates to Statement of Insolvency Practice (SIP) 2, comments are invited by 6 August 2026. This edition of Dear IP provides a helpful overview of the proposed changes, including a comparison of the proposed new SIP 2 against the current version.
For IPs who are appointed over a company with real estate assets that have residential tenants in situ, they will need to consider the impact of the Renters Rights Act 2025. This gives residential tenants enhanced rights, most notable around eviction. Although this does not mean that IPs can no longer remove a tenant, the process is likely to be longer and more costly. One of the first steps required by the new law was the requirement to provide residential tenants with an “Information Sheet” – see our blog. Watch this space for our new alert outlining the key points for IPs.
Dealing with HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) debt in a restructuring plan remains topical, as the recent Waldorf RP demonstrates. Although HMRC were not successful in their challenge to the plan, nor in obtaining permission to appeal, we suspect that this will not be the last challenge. Perhaps, as alluded to by the judge in the application for permission to appeal, HMRC will, in another case, pursue the question of, whether, as a matter of public policy, the cram down power can be used against HMRC.
And while mentioning HMRC are you aware of the mandatory requirements to register as a tax advisor? There are exceptions to the need to register, but these only apply once an IP is formerly appointed, so for pre-appointment advice, which might involve engagement with HMRC, registration is required. Although we expect most IP firms (and relevant individuals) will be registered, check the guidance.
The eagerly awaited appeal of Novalpina is expected to be heard at the end of this month. The first instance decision caused waves last year following the court determining that all debts must be paid within 12 months of a company entering member’s voluntary liquidation (MVL). Although many practitioners had understood the legislation in that way, it could be read differently – our original blog gives more detail on the case. The appeal will, we understand, consider this point but also the question of how to deal with contingent/disputed debts in an MVL. Whatever the outcome, it will hopefully bring clarity to the market.
If you would like specific advice on any of these issues or anything else, please contact a member of our UK Restructuring & Insolvency team.
