Earlier this year, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) recognized a victory in United States v. Miller. In this bankruptcy case, the trustee attempted to avoid certain transfers that shareholders of the bankrupt company had made, including a $145,000 transfer to the IRS.
In Re King & Wood Mallesons and other matters [2025] SGHC 67, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore (High Court) granted recognition and reliefs under the UNCITRAL Model Law on CrossBorder Insolvency (Model Law) in respect of a consolidated reorganisation of three Chinese companies in the People’s Republic of China (PRC). This decision provides guidance to insolvency office-holders appointed under PRC law on the procedural requirements to seek recognition under the Model Law in Singapore.
Upcoming Lexology Index research – June to August 2025
Report Title | Research begins | Submission deadline (referees and work highlights) | Research ends | Survey link | Research contact |
Switzerland is known for its efficient legal system and pro-enforcement stance. However, if you are a foreign insolvency practitioner handling bankruptcy proceedings with ongoing litigation in Switzerland, you may face some procedural hurdles.
This article outlines the effects of a foreign bankruptcy decree in Switzerland and explores the available options to initiate or continue litigation.
WHAT HAPPENS?
Foreign insolvency practitioners are barred from litigating without prior recognition
What you need to know
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.
Given the increased intertwining of national economies, cross-border insolvency presents salient legal and financial difficulty. Upon the existence of an insolvent debtor in more than one country, the necessity to deal with assets and/or creditors creates very complicated jurisdictional problems and other legal issues. Most of the time, a company will operate in several jurisdictions and hence face very complicated transnational insolvency scenarios.
“[T]he appellant would not have acquired priority over other creditors by the sheriff’s levy, for the obvious reason that the right of property in the goods seized under the execution had previously passed” to the assignee under Debtor’s ABC.
- Reed v McIntyre, 98 U.S. 507, 512 (1878).
Facts
The Debtor, in the U.S. Supreme Court’s Reed v. McIntyre opinion, is a merchant.
Chapter 11 plans contain various releases -- some in favor of the debtor and some in favor of certain nondebtor third parties. However, while creditors are bound by a Chapter 11 discharge, creditors have options for how to deal with a plan's third-party release.
Key Issues
CHAPTER 11 DISCHARGE