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).

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).

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.

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

Can section 234 of the Insolvency Act 1986 serve as a fast-track route for administrators to secure vacant possession of property from trespassers? That was the question before the High Court in the recent case of Maher v Investalet Ltd [2025] EWHC 3133 (Ch).

The facts

It has recently been reported in the press that the project company for England’s largest Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contract is going into liquidation, affecting 88 schools in Stoke-on-Trent.

The Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025 (the “Act”) came into force on 2 December 2025, providing helpful statutory confirmation that digital assets may be considered “property” as a matter of law in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The Act, working together with current insolvency law, is a significant step in providing further certainty to investors, lenders, and custodians in the digital asset market.

Despite meeting statutory jurisdictional requirements under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006, the High Court declined to exercise its discretion in favour of sanctioning Waldorf Production UK Plc’s restructuring plan in August 2025due to concerns about fair allocation of value and lack of meaningful engagement with unsecured creditors.

In early November 2025 one of the biggest UK’s largest private building control firms Assent Building Control Compliance Limited, along with its subsidiaries Oculus Building Consultancy Limited and LB Building Control Limited, (together “Assent”) ceased trading and subsequently entered liquidation. The collapse of such a major player in the building control sector will likely have wide ramifications throughout the whole construction industry, and particularly for HRB developments and the BSR’s Gateway 2 Application process.

Usually, a Fixed Charge Receiver will not be liable to pay business rates. However, there are some exceptions and in some important areas the law is unclear.

Occupied Property: Limited Exposure

To be liable for business rates a party must be in occupation of the Property. This is a matter of fact and degree. Generally, the position is clear although there can be issues for example where more than one party is entitled to occupation.