Brief Overview

Objectives - Objectives include early identification of jurisdictional issues, class composition, and efficient case management to resolve contested matters effectively.

Issuing Proceedings and Listing Notes - Applicants must issue a claim form in the name of the scheme or plan company before scheduling court hearings.

A listing note must accompany the claim form, detailing time estimates for hearings, an indicative timetable, and any relevant financial or contested issues.

Application Listings - Applications for Part 26 meetings orders for members’ schemes can be listed before either an Insolvency and Companies Court Judge or a High Court Judge, while creditor schemes must be listed before a High Court Judge.

Responsibilities of the Applicant - Applicants must identify issues affecting meeting constitution, statutory jurisdiction, and international jurisdiction before the convening hearing.

Matters for Consideration at the Convening Hearing - The Court will address whether multiple meetings are necessary and their appropriate composition.

The Court may refuse to make a meetings order if the explanatory statement is inadequate but will not approve its substance at this stage.

Further Case Management - Creditors and members can raise objections at the sanction hearing, but they must show good reason for not addressing these at the convening hearing.

The updated Practice Statement applies in all cases where an application for a meetings order is to be dealt with at a convening hearing listed on any date on or after 1 January 2026.

A breakdown of the feedback R3 submitted and what was incorporated into the updated Practice Statement.

In its June 2025 response, R3 welcomed the opportunity to engage with the draft Practice Statement, believing that it would help save court time. R3's comments were prepared in collaboration with members of a Part 26A Restructuring Plan Working Group, and Policy Group.

Changes to the Practice Statement

- Practice Statement Paragraph 5 (Updated Paragraph 6)

R3 raised concerns that the requirement to issue a claim form before a court hearing date is set could create practical difficulties. Filing a claim on CE-File, a system for electronic filing, might trigger a notification and potentially lead to breaches of confidentiality or defaults, which could undermine the restructuring plan. R3 suggested using a reference number instead of the company's name to minimise these risks. Although the draft statement mentioned that a company could apply for an order restricting access to the court file for confidentiality reasons, R3 was concerned this might not be enough to protect sensitive information. R3 pointed out that filing on CE-File can expose the company name and cause market speculation, even with a sealed file.

At paragraph 6, the updated Practice Statement addresses the above by adding a new provision, which states that an applicant can "apply for an order restricting access to the Court file under CPR, Part 5 and/or for an order that its identity... should not be disclosed under CPR, rule 39.2(4)".

- Practice Statement Paragraph 6 (Updated Paragraph 7)

The draft Practice Statement required the applicant's listing note to include an indicative timetable that accounts for "any application(s) for permission to appeal". R3 pointed out that appeals are happening more frequently and that for urgent cases, there might be a need to shorten the appeal process. They stressed the need for full engagement with the court listing process to ensure speed and certainty for urgent cases.

The final Practice Statement modifies this statement to require the indicative timetable to include "time for any appeal if considered likely". This change appears to acknowledge R3's concern about the need for flexibility in the appeals process by making it conditional on whether an appeal is "considered likely" rather than a blanket requirement for all timetables.

- Practice Statement Paragraph 16 (Updated Paragraph 17)

R3 commented on the draft requirement that no material changes be made to the explanatory statement after the convening order without a "further order of the court". R3 suggested that this requirement could lead to unnecessary litigation and proposed a procedure where changes are simply notified to the judge via a tracked document on the CE-File. R3 believed this would save court time and costs by allowing amendments where deals have been made between the convening hearing and the meeting.

The final Practice Statement partially incorporates this feedback by modifying the draft text. It states that "no changes which are material... should be made to the documents after the convening order has been made without those changes being communicated to the members and creditors in sufficient time...". Additionally, it states that applicants "should also seek the approval of the court" for such changes" in any case where it is possible to do so". It also adds a new clause that the court may consider a failure to seek approval when deciding whether to sanction the scheme or plan. This appears to be a compromise, retaining the court's oversight while providing some flexibility by not strictly requiring a new court order for every change, but rather a communication of the changes, with the court’s approval being advised where possible.

- Practice Statement Paragraph 24 (Updated Paragraph 27)

R3's feedback on the draft Paragraph 24 focused on two points:

• Listing Process: R3 stated that while the court has discretion over the timetable, there needs to be full engagement with the court listing process and a firmer commitment on timings to help users predict the length of the process.

• Costs of Opponents: R3 commented that the court should be careful not to be overly lenient to challenging creditors, as this could lead to longer hearings and make the jurisdiction less appealing. R3 requested clearer guidance on when costs will and will not be recoverable.

The updated Practice Statement which sets a deadline for objectors to identify their objections (paragraph 20). It states that anyone objecting to the scheme or plan should, “if practicable identify the nature of their objection(s) at least 7 days prior to the convening hearing.” This addition appears to directly address R3's concern about managing contested issues efficiently, but the final statement does not add any guidance regarding the recoverability of costs.