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.

2025년 9월 12일, 중국 전국인민대표대회 상무위원회에 <기업파산법>의 개정안, 즉 <기업파산법(의견수렴안)>(이하 “<개정 초안>”)이 제출되었고, 2025. 10. 11.까지 의견 수렴 절차를 거쳤습니다. <개정 초안>은 2007년 <기업파산법>이 시행된 이후 약 18년 만에 이루어지는 전면 개정으로, 총 16장 216조로 구성되어 있습니다. 이번 개정은 파산제도의 실무적 효율성을 높이고, 개인 주주까지 절차의 범위를 확장하며, 경영진의 책임을 강화하는 데 중점을 두었습니다.

과거에는 중국에서 외상투자기업이 파산 절차를 활용하는 것이 현실적으로 어려웠습니다. 그러나 2018년 일반 외상투자기업의 파산에 대한 사전 승인 제도가 취소됨에 따라 외상투자기업의 파산 사례가 점차 증가하고 있습니다. 최근 매각이 어려운 기업의 경우 중국 시장에서의 철수를 모색하는 방안 중 하나로 파산 절차가 활용되고있습니다. 이번 개정은 중국 내에서 사업을 영위하거나 철수를 검토 중인 외국계 기업에도 실질적인 영향을 미칠 것으로 예상됩니다.