The appointment of an independent director is a powerful tool for private credit lenders. The appointment is designed to introduce a voice of neutrality and fairness into the board’s decision-making process with the hope and expectation that independence from the controlling shareholder enables the board to drive toward viable value-maximizing strategies. Often times, the independent director is vested with exclusive authority (or veto rights) over a range of significant corporate decisions, including a sale, restructuring and the decision to file a bankruptcy case.

The Court of Appeal of England and Wales (“EWCA”) recently handed down its decision in Servis-Terminal LLC v Valeriy Ernestovich Drelle [2025] EWCA Civ 62 clarifying that, as a matter of English law, an “unrecognised” foreign judgment cannot be relied upon as a basis to commence insolvency proceedings.

The Supreme Court has confirmed that s.423 of the Insolvency Act 1986, which provides for the avoidance of certain transactions where they have been entered into for the purpose of defrauding creditors, has a broad application and covers not only transactions entered into by the debtor personally, but also those entered into via the debtor's company: El-Husseiny and another v Invest Bank PSC [2025] UKSC 4.

On 26 February 2025, Deputy Master Scher handed down judgment in the case Suman Bhatia v Christopher Purkiss, as liquidator of JD Group Limited [2025] EWHC 359 (Ch). Wedlake Bell LLP (partner Edward Saunders), and Nora Wannagat (Tanfield Chambers) acted for the successful liquidator.

A copy of the judgment is available here.

Background

Section 182 of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap. 32) (“CWUMPO”) renders the disposition of a company’s property after the presentation of a winding-up petition against it void, subject to any validation order granted by the court. This provision serves to preserve the company’s assets at the date of the winding-up petition for the general benefit of creditors, and to ensure that the statutory scheme of pari passu distribution can be implemented.

Introduction

As of December 2024, insolvencies in the real estate sector accounted for approximately 22% of admitted cases under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), making it second only to the manufacturing sector that accounted for 37% of admitted cases.[1] The high volume of insolvencies in the real estate sector, the imperative to protect homebuyer interests and specific challenges faced by this sector have resulted in several amendments focused specifically on the insolvency process for real

After a couple of years where uptake was slow, the small business restructuring (SBR) regime, which came into effect 1 January 2021, has well and truly cemented itself as the favoured debt restructuring process for companies with less than $1 million in liabilities (other than employee entitlements). There are now more SBRs per month than voluntary administrations, and represent around 25 per cent of all new corporate insolvencies.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) governs insolvency proceedings for individuals and partnership firms in India. This comprehensive legislation consolidates and amends laws pertaining to the reorganization and insolvency resolution of corporate persons, partnership firms, and individuals.

Of particular interest to commercial landlords, the recent decision of the court in SBP 2 SARL v 2 Southbank Tenant Ltd [2025]EWHC 16 (Ch) illustrates the risks to a landlord of simply cross-referring to Section 123 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (respectively, Section 123 and the 1986 Act) in the forfeiture provisions of a lease without specifying any amendments to the statutory language and thereby provides a reminder of the importance of careful and accurate drafting.