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.

The High Court has held that the recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings under the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (the "CBIR") did not, in itself, vest rights or interests in English land in the foreign representative.

• In one of the most high-profile and hotly-watched cases in the London restructuring market, on 18 February 2025, the English High Court approved the restructuring plan proposed by Thames Water.
• The Court gave permission to appeal the Court’s order to a group of challenging junior creditors, a subordinated creditor and Liberal Democrat MP Charlie Maynard, with the Court of Appeal due to sit from 11 to 13 March 2025.

1. 들어가며

부동산PF에서 담보제공방식으로 저당권을 설정하지 않고 담보신탁을 활용하는 경우가 많습니다. 담보신탁을 하게 되면 담보물의 대내외적인 소유권이 수탁자에게 완전하게 이전되므로, 담보물에 대한 예상치 못한 집행을 방지할 수 있고, 채무자에 대한 회생절차가 개시되더라도 우선수익권을 회생절차에 의하지 않고 행사할 수 있는, 소위 '도산절연 효과'가 인정됩니다. 즉, 부동산 담보신탁 계약에서 우선수익자로 지정된 자는 통상 저당권과 유사한 담보권자의 지위를 확보하게 됩니다.

대상 판결(대법원 2024. 6. 27. 선고 2021다261704 판결)은 담보신탁에 따라 위탁자가 가지는 잔여대금 채권이 압류된 후 위탁자가 2순위 우선수익자를 지정하고, 다시 후순위 압류명령이 이루어진 사안에서, 공매에 따른 매각대금이 누구에게 귀속되는지에 대하여 판단하였습니다.

2. 사안의 개요

Introduction

Established in 2005 by the Wadia Group, Go Air, later rebranded as Go First, entered the Indian aviation sector as a low-cost carrier, aiming to provide affordable air travel to the rapidly expanding middle class. The airline was built on a business model that focused on operational efficiency, a streamlined fleet, and competitive pricing. However, despite its early success, Go Air faced mounting financial difficulties that ultimately led to its insolvency.