A preliminary judgment by the Frankfurt Regional Court has refused to recognise a UK Part 26A Restructuring Plan in Germany, raising questions about the future of cross-border restructurings involving English law. The case centers on the “Fürst” project, a significant real estate development in Berlin backed by Aggregate Holdings. To facilitate restructuring, the project’s borrower shifted its centre of main interest (COMI) to England and sought approval for a restructuring plan under Part 26A of the UK Companies Act 2006.
The plan included new senior financing, extended maturities for senior debt, and eliminated €245 million in subordinated debt for nominal consideration. Not all creditor groups were included in this arrangement. The English High Court approved the plan in March 2024.
However, a German senior creditor whose claim maturity was extended without consent challenged recognition of the plan in Germany. On August 22, 2025, the Frankfurt Regional Court ruled in favor of this creditor (case no. 2-12 O 239/24), refusing to recognise both the UK Restructuring Plan and its provisions regarding maturity extension.
The court stated that the Restructuring Plan did not meet criteria as “insolvency proceedings” under Section 343 of the German Insolvency Code (InsO). According to the court, it lacked collective character because it only involved certain classes of creditors—mainly financial creditors—and excluded others such as trade creditors and professional advisers.
Additionally, recognition as a “foreign judgment” under Section 328 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) was denied due to lack of reciprocity; English courts would need to recognise an equivalent German judgment. The court noted that this had not been demonstrated by the defendant. This issue may relate to the “Gibbs rule” in English law, which holds that debts governed by English law cannot be compromised by foreign proceedings unless relevant creditors participate.
The court also rejected recognition under the 1968 Brussels Convention, stating that it did not revive after Brexit.
Uncertainty remains over whether UK Restructuring Plans can be recognised in Germany. Legal literature has highlighted ongoing doubts regarding recognition under both Section 343 InsO and Section 328 ZPO—a position reflected in this decision.
There is debate over whether such plans should be considered insolvency proceedings for recognition purposes. While EU regulations recognise some semi-collective proceedings within member states—such as Germany’s StaRUG—as insolvency proceedings, it is unclear if similar treatment could apply to UK plans post-Brexit.
This preliminary judgment is subject to further hearings and is currently being appealed by the claimant.
Until a final ruling is made, this decision introduces uncertainty for cross-border restructurings involving English law and may limit use of London’s market for these purposes. It remains uncertain whether effects will be confined to German proceedings or influence broader EU practices temporarily.