© WongPartnership LLP DISCLAIMER: This update is intended for your general information only. It is not intended to be nor should it be regarded as or relied upon as legal advice. You should consult a qualified legal professional before taking any action or omitting to take action in relation to matters discussed herein. WongPartnership LLP (UEN: T08LL0003B) is a limited liability law partnership registered in Singapore under the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2005.

A recent Federal Court decision has provided some useful insights on how related party loans will be considered in an insolvency context, particularly in relation to unreasonable director-related claims against directors and their relatives. For insolvency practitioners it also provides insight into how the assignment of claims might effectively be used to mitigate litigation risks.

Introduction

Years after an insolvency proceeding is closed, can a solvent co-lessee/working interest participant (WIP) still be on the hook for their former partner’s share of unpaid Crown royalties? A recent Alberta Court of Appeal decision to allow an appeal in Spartan Delta Corp v Alberta (Energy and Minerals), 2025 ABCA 181 [Spartan Delta], raises concerns around whether the answer to such question can be 'yes'.

Introduction

In the recent High Court decision of Ley and another v Suttle and another [2025] EWHC 796 (Ch), Joint Liquidators successfully obtained permission from the Court to amend pleadings in circumstances where the originating Insolvency Act application was issued on a protective basis to preserve limitation.

Indonesia’s growing economy offers a wealth of opportunities for foreign investors. Nonetheless, as in any jurisdiction, investors should obtain proper advice before entering commercial engagements with local counterparties.

Investors or companies may, as part of their wider investment thesis or business plan, make distressed asset purchases to strategically acquire assets which they may otherwise not be able to conveniently or affordably obtain. While the face value of the asset purchased may be lower than that acquired in a “solvent” transaction, purchasers should be aware that such acquisitions carry a heavy tail liability risk, which may take the form of a potential clawback as a transaction at an undervalue.

Introduction

The intersection of the arbitration and insolvency regimes has once again come under judicial scrutiny. In Aryan (SEA) Private Limited v Pure Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC 99 (Aryan), the General Division of the High Court of Singapore (GD) considered whether an application to restrain a winding-up petition raised a dispute that prima facie fell within the scope of an arbitration agreement, or whether the application amounted to an abuse of process.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (“IBBI”) recently notified the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2025 dated May 19, 2025 and the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Fourth Amendment) Regulations, 2025 dated May 26, 2025 (collectively referred as “Amendment Regulations”), amending certain key provisions under the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (“CIRP Regulations”).

Key takeaways