In a significant further application of the Court of Appeal’s reasoning in Adler, Thames Water and Petrofac, the High Court declined to sanction a cross-class cram down restructuring plan proposed by Waldorf Production UK Plc.

In a difficult economic climate, commercial landlords may fear that tenant insolvencies mean no one will foot the bill for dilapidations claims at lease expiry – but they are not without recourse.

A. Introduction

The Singapore’s Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Natixis, Singapore Branch v Seshadri Rajagopalan and others and other appeals [2025] SGCA 29 serves as an important decision for the intersection between insolvency and admiralty laws. The decision addresses a dispute concerning admiralty statutory liens, examining whether the judicial managers of an insolvent ship owning company acted wrongfully by procuring the offshore arrest and judicial sale of a vessel, despite the appellants having issued admiralty in rem writs against it in Singapore.

前 言

在全球化经济纵深发展与企业出海战略持续推进的背景下，开拓海外市场、融入全球产业链及供应链是中国内地企业未来重点发展的战略选择。然而，跨境商业活动在带来机遇的同时亦伴随着跨法域的风险与挑战，跨境破产无论在理论还是实务都具有相当的复杂性。

本文将以主要利益中心原则（Centre of Main Interests，以下简称“COMI”）为出发点，结合实务案例浅析COMI原则在部分海外国家的适用及中国内地债权人的应对策略，为出海企业提供跨境破产风险管理的参考依据。

一、跨境破产视域下的管辖权

“跨境破产”概念及与之相关的规范均正式确立于联合国国际贸易法委员会1997年颁布的《跨境破产示范法》（UNCITRAL Model Laws on Cross-Border Insolvency，以下简称“《示范法》”）。《示范法》最为核心的内容便是确立了COMI在跨境破产管辖权认定上的重要作用，虽然COMI原则在近年受到来自“承诺规则”与“事后选择规则”等新兴理论的挑战[1]，但作为近30年来在全球63个法域普遍适用的基本准则[2]，掌握COMI在不同国家或地区的司法实践适用在当下仍具有重要的现实意义。

The legal framework w.r.t. law of insolvency in India has seen considerable progress since the introduction of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”). The Legislature, taking cue from various judgments passed by the courts and the grey areas identified during the implementation of the provisions of IBC, introduced various amendments from time to time. However, notwithstanding such amendments, various legal questions involving interpretation and implementation of provisions of IBC keep arising posing challenges before the Courts to resolve the same.

© WongPartnership LLP DISCLAIMER: This update is intended for your general information only. It is not intended to be nor should it be regarded as or relied upon as legal advice. You should consult a qualified legal professional before taking any action or omitting to take action in relation to matters discussed herein. WongPartnership LLP (UEN: T08LL0003B) is a limited liability law partnership registered in Singapore under the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2005.

Voor veel mensen betekent een bestuursfunctie binnen een vereniging een betrokken, maatschappelijk engagement. Maar wie bestuursverantwoordelijkheid op zich neemt, draagt ook juridische risico’s. Zeker wanneer de vereniging in financiële problemen raakt. Wat veel bestuurders niet beseffen, is dat zij onder omstandigheden persoonlijk kunnen worden aangesproken voor financiële tekorten na een faillissement.

For many people, a board position within an association means a committed, civic engagement. But those who assume board responsibility also bear legal risks. Especially when the association gets into financial trouble. What many directors do not realize is that, under circumstances, they can be personally liable for financial shortfalls after a bankruptcy.

This article offers insight into when and why directors of associations can be held liable, what legal frameworks underlie this, and how to reduce the risk of personal claims.

In Vesnin v Queeld Ventures Ltd & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 951, the English Court of Appeal has ruled that in an application for recognition at common law of a foreign insolvency, a respondent to that application may have standing to oppose the recognition even if they are not a creditor. The fact that other relief is sought against them, which is contingent on recognition of the foreign insolvency, can and usually will suffice to give them standing to oppose the recognition.

Background

In the recent high-profile decision of Re: Li Yonghong[2025] HKCFI 3307, the Honourable Madam Justice Linda Chan made a bankruptcy order against Mr. Li Yonghong — a businessman best known for his prior ownership of AC Milan. The judgment offers important takeaways for bankruptcy and insolvency practitioners on, inter alia, the resolution of inaccuracies or defects in statutory demands and petitions.

Background