Cash flow pressure rarely begins with a dramatic collapse. More often, it starts with delayed receivables, mounting supplier demands, pressure from lenders, and partners asking whether the business can still meet its obligations next month. At that stage, UAE insolvency law for businesses becomes more than a legal topic. It becomes a decision-making framework that can protect assets, preserve value, and reduce the risk of personal and corporate exposure.

The La Perla case represents one of the first real tests of cross-border insolvency between Italy and the United Kingdom in the post-Brexit landscape. The well-known lingerie brand, founded in Bologna in 1954, became embroiled in a complex corporate crisis that culminated in November 2023 with the opening of compulsory liquidation proceedings before the High Court in London against La Perla Global Management (UK) Limited (LPGMUK).

The High Court has dismissed an application to set aside a statutory demand, providing helpful guidance on the high bar debtors must meet to establish a “genuine and substantial dispute” in insolvency proceedings, particularly where challenges are based on default interest, alleged oral representations and Consumer Credit Act 1974 (“CCA 1974”) arguments.

Background

Introduction

On 1 April 2026, the long-awaited Directive harmonising certain aspects of insolvency law (the Directive) entered into force. The Directive covers five pillars:

Summary

2025年9月12日，《中华人民共和国企业破产法（修订草案）》（“《破产法草案》”）公布，修订并新增多项涉税费条款。

2025年11月26日，国家税务总局发布《欠税公告办法》，自2026年3月1日起施行，其中优化不公告欠税情况的适用范围，实现与《公司法》、《企业破产法》衔接。

It has been a while since we have had any cases challenging the fairness of a CVA, but in this recent Scottish decision where HMRC challenged the approval of Petrofac’s CVA on the basis of fairness, the court was required to consider HMRC’s contention that the CVA unfairly prejudiced its interests.

Introduction

When a company goes into insolvent liquidation, maximising recovery for the company’s legitimate creditors takes highest priority.

In order to better protect the interests of creditors, Singapore law has long recognised that a company in liquidation should be protected from frivolous lawsuits, in order to ensure that the liquidation process is carried out smoothly and efficiently without incurring additional costs depleting the company’s asset pool. This protection comes in two ways:

はじめに

会社の破産手続が開始されると、会社の正当な債権者のための回収の最大化が最重要の法益となる。

会社の資産を枯渇させるような追加費用の発生を回避して清算処理を円滑かつ効率的なものにすることにより債権者の利益保護を図る趣旨で、シンガポール法においては、清算処理中の会社を濫用的な訴訟から保護すべきであると長い間認識されてきた。かかる保護は、2つの方法で行われている：

1. 2018年倒産・再生・清算法（以下「IRDA」という。）の規定に基づき、裁判所の許可がない限り、清算処理中の会社に対して法的手続を開始することはできない。
2. 裁判所の許可がない限り、会社のliquidator、すなわち当該会社の清算処理を行う管財人や清算人に対して、いかなる法的手続も提起できない。これは判例法に定められたコモンロー上の原則である。

この点、会社の清算処理を進める過程で、管財人や清算人が第三者と個別契約を締結する必要が生じることがある。その場合、そのような個別契約から生じる訴訟手続も裁判所の保護の対象となるかどうかが問題となる。

"ABS" is a natural fit for midstream oil and gas assets because the assets generate predictable, contracted cashflows — exactly what securitization markets reward. Here’s how a securitization transaction typically works:The Core StructureA midstream company (the originator/sponsor) isolates a pool of revenue-generating assets into a Special PurposeVehicle (SPV) — a bankruptcy-remote entity that issues securities to capital markets investors.