Inthe matter of Trinco (NSW) Pty Ltd (in liq) [2025] NSWSC 993, the New South Wales Supreme Court found Mr Azizi to be a de facto director of Trinco (NSW) Pty Ltd (in liq) (Trinco) and liable for insolvent trading. Trinco’s liquidator was awarded compensation, payable by Mr Azizi.

1. The CMS Law-Now article “Arbitration agreement does not prevent winding up petition” updated the position in England & Wales following the Privy Council decision in Sian Participation Corporation (In Liquidation) v Halimeda International Ltd [2024] UKPC 16 (“Sian”).

In the recent high-profile decision of Re: Li Yonghong[2025] HKCFI 3307, the Honourable Madam Justice Linda Chan made a bankruptcy order against Mr. Li Yonghong — a businessman best known for his prior ownership of AC Milan. The judgment offers important takeaways for bankruptcy and insolvency practitioners on, inter alia, the resolution of inaccuracies or defects in statutory demands and petitions.

Background

Introduction

Introduction

Introduction

In this first instalment of our insights series on construction insolvency, Ironbridge Legal outlines key red flags to look for and practical steps to manage counterparty risk.

An Industry at Risk - With Contagion Potential

Introduction

In December 2024, Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) released an updated version of Regulatory Guide RG 217. The guidance is designed to assist directors in complying with their duty to prevent insolvent trading. It sets out four key principles for directors to avoid insolvent trading, explains the safe harbour defence (which offers protection from personal liability), and clarifies ASIC’s approach to assessing breaches of duty and the application of the safe harbour defence.

In Re Chow Kai Weng (A Debtor) [2025] HKCFI 1888, the Court dismissed the Debtor’s interim order application.

Individual Voluntary Arrangement (IVA) is an alternative to bankruptcy – it involves an application to the Court for an Interim Order. The debtor is required to make a repayment proposal to the creditors which, on approval, is binding on all creditors. However, contrary to the widely-held belief that interim order applications appear to be non-contentious in nature, time and again the Court of Appeal has reminded practitioners that:

On 7 May 2025, the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) handed down a judgment providing useful guidance on the meaning of “fraudulent trading” within s.213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (Insolvency Act) and how the test in s.32(1) of the Limitation Act 1980 (Limitation Act) operates, in Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) v Tradition Financial Services Ltd [2025] UKSC 18 (Bilta). In this article, we give a brief summary of the facts, issues and rulings in the judgment and its practical implications for Hong Kong’s corporate insolvency regime.

Background

Directors beware!