This article examines the recent decision in Maher & Anor v Investalet Ltd & Anor.

Section 234 Insolvency Act 1986 provides:

“(2) Where any person has in his possession or control any property, books, papers or records to which the company appears to be entitled, the court may require that person forthwith (or within such period as the court may direct) to pay, deliver, convey, surrender or transfer the property, books, papers or records to the office-holder.”

Assignments for benefit of creditors (“ABCs”) and receiverships have been utilized effectively for centuries under the common law, side-by-side as separate and distinct and complementary remedies for liquidating assets.

Differences

Differences between the two are that:

Overview

In a recent judgment in Target Insurance Company Limited v Nerico Brothers Limited & Lee Cheuk Fung Jerff [2025] HKCA 1024 the Court of Appeal has clarified that a director can be made personally liable for the costs incurred by a company under their control and that unreasonably opposes its winding up.

Background

The concept of an insolvency officeholder “adopting” employment contracts—well-established in UK administration law—does not have a direct equivalent in Hungarian insolvency practice. Nonetheless, understanding when a court-appointed trustee or restructuring administrator assumes employment obligations is crucial for both practitioners and employees.

Hungarian Context

In Hungary, the key officeholders in insolvency or restructuring proceedings are:

Introduction

On 12 November 2025, the Federal Court delivered an important judgment that brings much-needed clarity to the powers, responsibilities, and protections available to liquidators acting under the Companies Act 2016 ("CA 2016").

The decision provides authoritative guidance on what constitutes "costs and expenses of winding up" under section 527(1)(a), and on the high threshold applicable to efforts to remove or sue a liquidator.

Brief background

Introduction

The Federal Court has recently delivered a decision in the case of Victor Saw Seng Kee v Wong Weng Foo & Co; London Biscuits Berhad (In Liquidation) (Civil Appeal No.: 02(f)-61-12/2024) ("London Biscuits"), addressing four important questions of law. This ruling provides clarity on the powers of liquidators, the role of creditors in appointing liquidators, and the treatment of employee-related payments during winding up.

Background and Procedural History

The insolvency framework governing real estate projects in India has undergone a significant transformation with the recognition of “Reverse CIRP”, a judicial innovation designed to protect homebuyers’ interests while ensuring completion of stalled real estate projects. This mechanism was recently endorsed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) in the Satish Chander Verma v. Grand Reality Private Limited^[1] ("Grand Reality Case").

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.