Last year saw several important decisions relating to restructuring plans, including Petrofac (see our Law-Now: Saipem judgment: fair benefit sharing for all creditors) and Waldorf (see our Law-Now: Waldorf Plan Rejected: Court stresses fairness and good faith).

For what comes next tlt.com Disputes Outlook 2026 Insolvency TLT TLT Disputes Outlook 2026 Disputes Outlook 2026 Contents 2 Contents Live issues Expanded claims against directors of insolvent companies 3 Creditor challenges outside of formal insolvency 3 Increased regulation in the private rented sector 4 Emerging trends Insolvency proceedings as a method of debt recovery 5 Contested winding up and bankruptcy petitions 5 Mid-market restructuring plans 6 Spot the risks. Plan ahead. Resolve with confidence. Disputes aren’t always avoidable, but being prepared can make all the difference.

The Supreme Court of New South Wales has clarified the circumstances in which a liquidator may recover deposit funds paid to a third party and the extent to which a counterparty may rely on the good-faith defence under section 588FG of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in CL Financial Ltd (in Liquidation)^[1] has provided helpful guidance on applications for approving liquidators’ remuneration.

This article examines the recent decision in Maher & Anor v Investalet Ltd & Anor.

Section 234 Insolvency Act 1986 provides:

“(2) Where any person has in his possession or control any property, books, papers or records to which the company appears to be entitled, the court may require that person forthwith (or within such period as the court may direct) to pay, deliver, convey, surrender or transfer the property, books, papers or records to the office-holder.”

In Nordic Power Partners P/S & Ors v Rio Alto Energia, Empreendimentos E Participacoes LTDA & Ors [2025] EWHC 2875 (Comm), the Commercial Court reconfirmed its willingness to grant interim relief to an energy investor in the context of international projects (here related to Brazil). Specifically, this decision provides an interesting insight into steps that can be taken to prevent funds being received by a party that may soon become insolvent (which risks creditors being left without a satisfactory remedy once a dispute is resolved).

On insolvency, the pari passu principle applies, meaning unsecured creditors rank equally in the distribution of available assets. That principle helps explain why a creditor who has obtained a judgment debt but has not completed enforcement (for instance by obtaining a final charging order) will usually be barred from doing so once insolvency intervenes.

Welcome to the latest edition of the Financial Regulation Weekly Bulletin.

If you would like to discuss in more detail, please contact your relationship partner or email one of our Financial Regulation team.

For reasons explained in this blog, they did not in the case of Conway and others v Plass and others [2025] EWHC 2625 (Ch) but there could be situations where it might.

In Conway and others v Plass and others, the High Court has provided guidance on when contract liabilities incurred by administrators will be treated as administration expenses under the Lundy Granite principle.

Factual Background

Introduction

In a recent decision, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) provided useful clarification on how TUPE operates in insolvency scenarios when a provisional liquidator is appointed. The judgment confirms that the TUPE exception for terminal insolvency proceedings can apply earlier than some employers and buyers may expect, with the result that employee transfer protections may be disapplied before a winding-up order is made.

TUPE and insolvency