This is the second in a series of discussions about insurance issues unique to the Lone Star State.

Introduction

23 декабря 2025 года Пленум Верховного Суда РФ принял постановление № 41 "Об установлении в процедурах банкротства требований контролирующих должника лиц и аффилированных лиц должника"[1] (далее – "Постановление").

On 23 December 2025 the Plenary Session of the Russian Supreme Court issued Judgment No. 41 “On Establishing the Claims of the Controlling Persons of a Debtor and the Affiliates of the Debtor during Bankruptcy Proceedings"[1] (hereinafter the "Judgment").

Introduction

Reverse vesting orders (“RVOs”) have evolved from a creative restructuring tool used sparingly under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) into a flexible instrument increasingly considered in receivership and other insolvency proceedings. The past two years have seen Canadian courts (particularly in British Columbia) grapple with whether, and in what circumstances, an RVO can be justified under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”).

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).

When WeWork faced turmoil globally, leading its U.S. parent company to file for bankruptcy protection in 2023, few expected its Indian affiliate to become a case study in strength and discipline. Once seen as a symbol of the “new economy,” WeWork’s downfall illustrated the dangers of excessive growth, inflated valuations, and weak governance where the promise of change often exceeded execution. In this context, WeWork India operated under a brand license and was supported by the Embassy Group, taking a different route.

In Re Resource Development Group Limited (Administrators Appointed) [2025] WASC 408, the Court granted relief to the voluntary administrators of Resource Development Group Ltd (RDG) from personal liability under a loan arrangement and extended time for the registration of a related security interest.  

Key Takeaway

In Re Bayview Health – Matilda Bay Pharmacy Pty Ltd; ex parte Smith & Jacobs [No 2] [2025] WASC 405, the Court held that a failure to provide the 14 days’ notice of a board meeting, required by a shareholder agreement, to appoint a voluntary administrator, was a procedural irregularity that could be cured.

Key Takeaway

In Yeo (liquidator), in the matter of Tuftex Carpets Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2025] FCA 1200 the liquidators sought approval from the court to enter into a settlement agreement. The claims underlying the settlement agreement were against the former director and parent company for insolvent trading and the resulting loss.

Key Takeaways