In autumn of 2025, the English High Court decided that liquidators have unlimited personal exposure: they cannot contractually limit or exclude their personal liability for breach of duty. An application for permission to appeal that decision is now before the Court of Appeal.
Key Takeaway
Luxembourg’s law of 5 August 2005 on financial collateral arrangements, as amended (Collateral Law 2005), continues to offer strong safe-harbor protections for financial collateral arrangements and is now confirmed to apply to insolvency proceedings globally.
Recent Developments
Court of Appeal Ruling
The UK Supreme Court’s recent decision in El-Husseini and another v Invest Bank PSC [2025] UKSC 4 has clarified the circumstances in which section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the Act) provides protection against attempts by debtors to “defeat their creditors and make themselves judgment-proof.” This is a critical decision for insolvency practitioners, any corporate or fund which is involved in distressed deals and beyond to acquirers who were not aware they were dealing in distressed assets.
With two decisions (No. 1895/2018 and No. 1896/2018), both filed on 25 January 2018, the Court of Cassation reached opposite conclusions in the two different situations
The case
The Constitutional Court (6 December 2017) confirmed that Art. 147, para. 5, of the Italian Bankruptcy Law does not violate the Constitution as long as it is interpreted in a broad sense
The case
With the decision No. 1195 of 18 January 2018, the Court of Cassation ruled on the powers of the extraordinary commissioner to require performance of pending contracts and on the treatment of the relevant claims of the suppliers
The case
The Court of Cassation with a decision of 25 September 2017, No. 22274 confirms that Art. 74 of the Italian Bankruptcy Law provides a special rule, which does not apply to cases to which it is not explicitly extended
The case
With the decision No. 1649 of 19 September 2017 the Court of Appeals of Catania followed the interpretation according to which a spin-off is not subject to the avoiding powers of a bankruptcy receiver
The case
The Supreme Court of Cassation (19 October 2017, No. 24682) discerns the respective scope of application of the criteria for the liquidation of compensation to the lawyer in case there was no specific agreement between the parties
The case
The case
The receiver of a bankrupt joint-stock company sued its directors before the Court of Rome, in order to ascertain their liability, pursuant to Article 146 of Bankruptcy Law.
More precisely, the bankruptcy was considered the result of a transaction particularly burdensome with respect to the company’s share capital and unjustified in relation to the economic value of the block of shares acquired.