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 Court of Appeal has recently clarified an important aspect of cross-border enforcement in insolvency proceedings. In Servis-Terminal LLC v Drelle [2025] EWCA Civ 62, the Court of Appeal ruled that a foreign judgment cannot be used as the basis for a bankruptcy petition in England and Wales unless it has first been recognised by an English court. 

Following the High Court’s landmark case in 2023 where cryptocurrency was recognised by the Court as property and could form a subject matter of a trust, the High Court recently further clarified the trust relationship between exchanges and their customers. Non-Consenting Customers (NCCs) who did not accept the 2018 Terms and Conditions (T&C) were found to have a proprietary interest in their assets, giving them priority in the liquidation process. Conversely, customers who had agreed to the T&Cs were treated as unsecured creditors.

The insolvency of a premises licence holder has an immediate impact from a licensing perspective. Most premises licences are granted in perpetuity. They can be surrendered by the holder, temporarily lapse if annual fees are not paid, or be revoked following a review. These are actions the licence holder either proactively instigates or is given notice of. However, a licence lapsing because of insolvency is different because the premises licence holder may be unaware that a licence has lapsed and it may be too late to rectify matters when the lapse is brought to their attention.

Distressed transactions increasingly mark the Swiss M&A landscape. An important piece in the Swiss restructuring toolbox is the sale of parts or all of the business under court supervision during a composition moratorium. It has been used successfully in an increasing number of cases recently. Typically, the relevant part of the business is pre-packed – structured and prepared for sale – before being sold with court approval. As we anticipate more distressed M&A transactions in 2025, it is worthwhile exploring the intricacies and implications of the Swiss pre-pack.

This article explains why the purchase of a shell company should be avoided today and even more so in the future under the new law, and that the formation of a new company is preferable when setting up a business (start-up).

At the end of this article, the possible effects of the revision of the law on legitimate transactions with company shares will also be discussed.

Seeking sound legal advice is therefore worthwhile both when founding a new company and when taking over an operating company.

Recently, in State Bank of India v. India Power Corporation Ltd., Civil Appeal 10424 of 2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court adjudicated upon the issue of certified copy of Order that is filed along with the appeal. 

The Hon’ble Supreme Court analysed several provisions of NCLT Rules and NCLAT Rules and held as follows:

i) Both the certified copy submitted free of cost as well as the certified copy which is made available on payment of cost are treated as “certified copies” for the purpose of Rule 50 of NCLT Rules.

A distressed merger and acquisition (“M&A”) is essentially a sub-category of a conventional M&A, which involves sales of shares or assets of companies that are in financial turmoil and these companies are being placed under administration, receivership and/or liquidation. Due to the unprecedented Covid-19 pandemic, distressed M&A transactions have become more common in recent years with companies in financial and operational distress looking to dispose of their assets to better manage high illiquidity as well as reducing over-indebtedness risk.

We examine the findings of the High Court’s decisions and discuss the lessons which directors of distressed businesses should take from them

The collapse of BHS in April 2016 remains one of the most extraordinary corporate failures in recent memory. Eight years on from the commencement of insolvency proceedings, and following a lengthy trial, the High Court has issued an expansive judgment on claims brought by the joint liquidators of four companies in the group against two former directors.

Factual background

Construction insolvency is not a new problem. With the continued presence of fixed price contracts, in an industry which has always been troubled with cash flow problems and low profit margins, coupled with persistent cost inflation and labour and materials issues affecting the supply chain, it is no surprise that we continue to see insolvencies. The question is, what can you do to protect yourself from insolvency?