The appointment of an independent director is a powerful tool for private credit lenders. The appointment is designed to introduce a voice of neutrality and fairness into the board’s decision-making process with the hope and expectation that independence from the controlling shareholder enables the board to drive toward viable value-maximizing strategies. Often times, the independent director is vested with exclusive authority (or veto rights) over a range of significant corporate decisions, including a sale, restructuring and the decision to file a bankruptcy case.

Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine has caused significant changes in all areas of Ukrainian life, and litigation is no exception. Some legal provisions that had previously been fully operational lost their relevance with the onset of martial law, and vice versa – a significant number of issues began to require regulation by the state. The bankruptcy sector in Ukraine has also been affected by this issue, and the legislator has faced a number of issues that have arisen and need to be resolved within the framework of bankruptcy proceedings.

The Supreme Court has confirmed that s.423 of the Insolvency Act 1986, which provides for the avoidance of certain transactions where they have been entered into for the purpose of defrauding creditors, has a broad application and covers not only transactions entered into by the debtor personally, but also those entered into via the debtor's company: El-Husseiny and another v Invest Bank PSC [2025] UKSC 4.

On 26 February 2025, Deputy Master Scher handed down judgment in the case Suman Bhatia v Christopher Purkiss, as liquidator of JD Group Limited [2025] EWHC 359 (Ch). Wedlake Bell LLP (partner Edward Saunders), and Nora Wannagat (Tanfield Chambers) acted for the successful liquidator.

A copy of the judgment is available here.

Background

The Court of Appeal of England and Wales (“EWCA”) recently handed down its decision in Servis-Terminal LLC v Valeriy Ernestovich Drelle [2025] EWCA Civ 62 clarifying that, as a matter of English law, an “unrecognised” foreign judgment cannot be relied upon as a basis to commence insolvency proceedings.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) governs insolvency proceedings for individuals and partnership firms in India. This comprehensive legislation consolidates and amends laws pertaining to the reorganization and insolvency resolution of corporate persons, partnership firms, and individuals.

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 High Court has held that the recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings under the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (the "CBIR") did not, in itself, vest rights or interests in English land in the foreign representative.

• In one of the most high-profile and hotly-watched cases in the London restructuring market, on 18 February 2025, the English High Court approved the restructuring plan proposed by Thames Water.
• The Court gave permission to appeal the Court’s order to a group of challenging junior creditors, a subordinated creditor and Liberal Democrat MP Charlie Maynard, with the Court of Appeal due to sit from 11 to 13 March 2025.

1. 들어가며

부동산PF에서 담보제공방식으로 저당권을 설정하지 않고 담보신탁을 활용하는 경우가 많습니다. 담보신탁을 하게 되면 담보물의 대내외적인 소유권이 수탁자에게 완전하게 이전되므로, 담보물에 대한 예상치 못한 집행을 방지할 수 있고, 채무자에 대한 회생절차가 개시되더라도 우선수익권을 회생절차에 의하지 않고 행사할 수 있는, 소위 '도산절연 효과'가 인정됩니다. 즉, 부동산 담보신탁 계약에서 우선수익자로 지정된 자는 통상 저당권과 유사한 담보권자의 지위를 확보하게 됩니다.

대상 판결(대법원 2024. 6. 27. 선고 2021다261704 판결)은 담보신탁에 따라 위탁자가 가지는 잔여대금 채권이 압류된 후 위탁자가 2순위 우선수익자를 지정하고, 다시 후순위 압류명령이 이루어진 사안에서, 공매에 따른 매각대금이 누구에게 귀속되는지에 대하여 판단하였습니다.

2. 사안의 개요