Three developments restructuring professionals should be watching

Restructuring professionals are accustomed to monitoring economic conditions, lender behaviour and legislative developments. However, some of the developments most likely to influence day-to-day practice over the coming years are changing not just what practitioners do, but how they do it.

Three, in particular, stand out.

AI is changing the nature of evidence

Much of the discussion surrounding AI focuses on how professionals can use it. A more immediate question may be how practitioners respond when others do.

AI-generated correspondence, creditor complaints and position statements are already finding their way into our matters. It’s not difficult to envisage a near future in which board papers, business plans, witness statements and management information are routinely generated, or at least heavily influenced, by AI tools. In some cases, entire letters before action are being drafted by litigants in person using generative AI, with little or no professional input.

The challenge is not that such material is obviously flawed. Often, it’s coherent, persuasive and professionally presented. The difficulty lies in establishing whether it’s accurate, whether it reflects genuine analysis and, in some cases, whether it represents the author’s views at all.

For insolvency practitioners and their advisers, the emphasis may increasingly shift from obtaining information to validating it. The origins of information, methodology and verification are likely to become more important concepts than they have been historically. In practical terms, this may mean asking more searching questions about how documents were prepared, what sources were relied upon and whether the stated author genuinely engaged with the underlying analysis.

Professional scepticism has always been a valuable skill. In an AI-driven environment, it may become indispensable.

More data doesn’t mean better investigations

Modern businesses generate extraordinary volumes of information. Emails, Teams messages, WhatsApp groups, cloud-based systems and collaborative platforms create a digital record of almost every aspect of corporate life. Yet investigations don’t necessarily become easier as a result.

Important decisions are frequently discussed across multiple platforms. Information can be fragmented across devices, applications and users. Access rights, authentication requirements and third-party systems can all create practical barriers once an insolvency event occurs. Former employees may have left the business taking knowledge of relevant communications with them, or informal channels may have been used precisely because they were perceived as less permanent.

The result is a curious paradox. Businesses have never generated more information, yet establishing a coherent evidential narrative is often more challenging than it was when records were predominantly held in board packs, filing cabinets and company email servers.

The challenge for practitioners is no longer locating information but identifying what matters, reconciling inconsistent sources and determining which version of events should be treated as authoritative.

Governance is moving centre stage

The court’s decision in Saxon Woods Investments Ltd v Costa [2026] is a useful reminder that governance and process continue to matter, even where directors genuinely believe they are acting in the company’s best interests.

The significance of the case extends beyond its specific facts. The Supreme Court confirmed that the statutory duty to promote the success of the company requires good faith in a director’s conduct as well as in their thoughts, aims and motives. This reflects a broader theme that practitioners are increasingly encountering: good intentions are not a substitute for good governance.

Many restructuring situations involve disagreement. Directors may hold different views on strategy and shareholders may favour one outcome while lenders favour another. In those circumstances, it’s natural for attention to focus on the proposed outcome. Equally important, however, is how the decision was reached.

Were alternative courses properly considered? Were differing views debated and recorded? Were constitutional requirements observed? Was there a clear decision-making process? For office-holders reviewing conduct with the benefit of hindsight, these questions can be every bit as significant as the commercial rationale itself.

As restructuring situations become more complex and stakeholder scrutiny increases, governance is likely to attract greater attention rather than less.