The UK retail sector faces ongoing challenges from shifts in consumer behaviour and persistent economic pressures. In this light, Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 has become a vital mechanism for struggling companies, enabling them to undertake a holistic restructuring, effectively using one process rather than combining the Part 26 scheme technology with the CVA as had been the case prior to the introduction of the restructuring plan.
The Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”), in Mansi Brar Fernandes vs. Shubha Sharma and Anr. inter alia held that ‘speculative investors’ cannot be permitted to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) and has laid down certain key principles and criteria for determining who a ‘speculative investor’ would be.
Brief facts
Commissioner of Taxation v Runcity [2025] FCAFC 152 is the most recent decision arising from litigation involving disqualified liquidator, David Iannuzzi. In previous decisions, Mr Iannuzzi was found to have mismanaged the liquidation of 23 companies and was banned from practising as a liquidator for ten years. Eight of those companies (Companies) were deregistered between 2015 and 2016.
Johnson v His Majesty's Attorney-General [2025] EWHC 1943
The English High Court decision of Johnson v His Majesty's Attorney-General [2025] EWHC 1943 is the first time that an English court has sealed a non-royal will, contrary to the ancient tradition that wills are available to the public.
Background
Executive Summary:
In UK venture deals, investors often negotiate the right to appoint a director to the company’s board (as a rule of thumb, an investor with 5% to 10% or more of the company might ask for board rights). On paper, it makes sense, giving a seat at the table, direct access to management, and visibility on key decisions. But before taking that seat, we often advise investors to ask themselves: is it worth the hassle?
On 3 September 2025, the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in East Riding of Yorkshire Council v KMG SICAV-SIF-GB Strategic Land Fund [2025] EWCA Civ 1137, confirming that a “dedicated fund” of a Luxembourg specialised investment company was not an “unregistered company” within the meaning of section 220 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”), and therefore could not be wound up by the court under section 221 of the Act.
On 3 September 2025, the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in East Riding of Yorkshire Council v KMG SICAV-SIF-GB Strategic Land Fund [2025] EWCA Civ 1137, confirming that a “dedicated fund” of a Luxembourg specialised investment company was not an “unregistered company” within the meaning of section 220 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”), and therefore could not be wound up by the court under section 221 of the Act.
In a landmark judgment in the matter of Mansi Brar Fernandes vs Shubha Sharma and others delivered in September 2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reaffirmed the constitutional right to shelter as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Introduction
In Singapore, judicial managers ("JMs") appointed over a company are empowered to conduct a range of acts relating to the company's business. However, JMs face removal if they fail to adhere to the legislative framework on judicial management. In Tay Lak Khoon v Tan Wei Cheong [2025] SGCA 41, the Singapore Court of Appeal ("CA") set out the applicable test for when a JM may be removed for cause. In particular, the CA considered whether a JM may be removed for a decision based on legal advice.