As economic pressures mount and corporate distress becomes increasingly prevalent, lenders and borrowers alike are seeking proactive strategies to safeguard their interests without resorting to immediate enforcement action or commence other restructuring or insolvency proceedings. Whilst lenders typically prefer to avoid the costs and complexities of accelerating loans or enforcing security, they require effective mechanisms to monitor deteriorating financial positions of the borrower and maintain influence over critical business decisions. 

On 3 December 2025, the Official Gazette published Law no. 202/2025 that amends and supplements Law no. 213/2015 on the Insureds Guarantee Fund (FGA) and Law no. 85/2014 on insolvency prevention and insolvency proceedings.

These amendments significantly recalibrate the institutional design, financing toolkit, and cross-border coordination of Romania’s insurance guarantee scheme, with particular emphasis on the handling of motor third party liability (MTPL) insurance claims and alignment with the EU framework introduced by Directive 2021/2118.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) has issued the Insolvency Professionals to act as IRPs, RPs, Liquidators and Bankruptcy Trustees (Recommendation) (Second) Guidelines, 2025, which will govern appointments for the period January 1, 2026 to June 30, 2026.

In the recent decision of AlphaBow Energy Ltd. (Re) (“AlphaBow”),^[1] the Alberta Court of King’s Bench dismissed AlphaBow’s application to stay the Alberta Energy Regulator’s (“AER”) request for a security deposit for the duration of its restructuring proceedings.

Background

The Insolvency Service has for many decades been the Government department responsible for the oversight of bankruptcies, compulsory insolvencies and, in more serious cases, the disqualification of individual directors.

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