A time for change in restructuring plan case management

Restructuring plans under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 have been around for over 5 years.  Consistently critiqued by dissenting creditors for unfairness over the years, the court has sought to address certain of those criticisms (and other procedural issues) by introducing a revised Practice Statement (also applicable to Part 26 schemes of arrangement) front-loading much of the process going forward.  The tide has already started to turn for “out of the money” creditors in a series of recent appeal court decisions who can no longer be simply ignored, and the new Practice Statement should also have a positive impact on creditors.

Overview and commencement

Following a consultation process, the Chancellor of the High Court published an updated Practice Statement (“Statement”) in September 2025 (replacing the 2020 version), reshaping the conduct of restructuring plans listed for a convening hearing on or after 1 January 2026.

The objective of the Statement is to prioritise early definition of issues on matters such as jurisdiction, class composition and convening of meetings, with disciplined timetables and active case management; aiming to deliver a more efficient pathway to resolution of contested issues while using a proportionate allocation of the court’s resources.

Court powers and disciplined timetables

The Statement introduces new front‑loaded obligations on the plan company, including early identification of timing constraints, potential disputes, any intended cross‑class cram down, extent of engagement with creditors and any differences in engagement with reasons and the level of information provided with reasons for any differences; empowering the court with the ability to order expert evidence, targeted disclosure and to make costs directions at an early stage. 

More than just a procedural shift, this means that valuation, solvency and comparator issues should be identified and evidentially grounded normally at least 14 days before the convening hearing, ensuring early disclosure of relevant information so that the court can give appropriate directions and manage the process efficiently prior to the sanction hearing. 

The Statement also requires creditors with objections to the plan that could impact on matters to be addressed at the convening hearing to identify these at least 7 days before the convening hearing (if possible); allowing only 7 days for creditors to consider such information that the company has provided.

In theory, we should therefore expect stricter timetables for service of evidence, skeleton arguments, firmer listing control and reduced tolerance for late evidence or new objections.

Claim Form and Listing Note

Under the Statement, plan companies will be required to issue a claim form as a first step, providing time estimates and indicative timetables for convening and sanction hearings and any appeal, details of matters that may impact timetabling including potential contested issues, and details of urgency. The practice statement letter should also be filed with the claim form. The claim form should give creditors a heads-up if there hasn’t been any prior engagement, although the company can apply for an order to restrict access to the court file and/or to the identity of the company. So, we will have to see how often in practice this is sought and allowed.

Class composition

The Statement emphasises the importance of clearly identifying and justifying the proposed classes of creditors or members. Plan companies should provide a detailed explanation of the rationale behind class constitution, supported by evidence and legal submissions where necessary, at the convening hearing, so that appropriate case management directions can be set.  Early resolution of class questions could sharpen the explanatory statement and focus creditor engagement on the issues in dispute that may go to the decision on sanction.

The explanatory statement: higher standards and accessibility

The Statement materially raises expectations for explanatory statements. Beyond comprehensive content and clear timing, concise, accessible summaries are required. Creditors should be able to understand, at speed, the relevant alternative, allocation of burdens and benefits, and the justification for any departure from pari passu norms.  Courts will scrutinise whether plans evidence why differential treatment is justified and what realistic alternatives were available.

Front‑loading transparency and threshold issues

The new requirements should result in early identification of potential disputes and any requirement for cross‑class cram down and, in turn, drive earlier discussions on matters including jurisdiction, statutory conditions, creditor engagement—and fairness of the plan. Some of the sanction‑stage arguments will have to be raised during the convening process.

Structured disclosure

Expect prescriptive, structured disclosure on gateway and fairness issues, particularly valuation, the relevant alternative and recoveries. Evidence should show horizontal comparison between classes.

Raise objections early or risk losing opportunity

Creditors and members are expected to raise issues before convening, not save them for sanction.

The behavioural nudge is clear: parties intending to challenge should engage early, identify issues prior to the convening hearing where possible and, where appropriate, adduce their own evidence. Courts will be unsympathetic to tactical delay and may make adverse costs orders.

Implications for plan companies and stakeholders

Plan companies should prepare disciplined timetables, evidence supporting the plan and early engagement strategies with affected classes. Plan benefits reports or similar—transparently setting out contributions, compromises and benefit allocation by class—are likely to become standard. 

Creditors should try to engage early with plan companies and where possible with other creditors in their class. If seeking to object, targeted disclosure requests should be considered and relevant evidence (including expert evidence) obtained to support objections.

Those negotiating should use convening to shape class composition, disclosure scope and the fairness narrative.

Conclusion

Effective for convening hearings from 1 January 2026, the Statement raises the bar on preparation and transparency, incentivises early creditor engagement and equips the court to manage contentious plans with greater discipline.

The challenge for creditors (including landlords) will be gearing up at a very early stage to consider the plan and associated evidence, engage with the plan company and/or other members of its class and identify any objections that are worth pursuing.  It is not yet clear whether timescales will become more protracted to allow time for both plan companies and creditors to deal with this new front-loaded approach.