This week’s TGIF considers the recent Supreme Court decision of Re ML & NB Pty Ltd [2025] VSC 444. It concerns the extent to which a plaintiff can rely on a statutory demand issued by a supporting creditor to satisfy the presumption of insolvency.

Key takeaways

New Zealand’s unemployment rate rose to 5.2 percent in the June 2025 quarter, according to figures released this week. As the economy takes longer to recover from the recession, costs increase and profit margins tighten, more businesses are facing solvency issues - and it is likely the unemployment figures will be higher in the next quarter. Statistics for 2024 revealed the highest number of formal insolvency appointments for the past 10 years. As of 30 June 2025, that annual figure is on track for another increase.

In a groundbreaking decision of particular importance to participants in Chapter 15 proceedings, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an opinion making clear that defendants in Chapter 15 proceedings may have Safe Harbor defenses even when a liquidator brings non-U.S. common law claims. This decision, issued on August 5, 2025 in Fairfield Sentry, holds that when a liquidator uses a US Bankruptcy Court to pursue non-U.S. common law claims, it must abide by the safe harbor afforded by Section 546(e) of the U.S.

© WongPartnership LLP DISCLAIMER: This update is intended for your general information only. It is not intended to be nor should it be regarded as or relied upon as legal advice. You should consult a qualified legal professional before taking any action or omitting to take action in relation to matters discussed herein. WongPartnership LLP (UEN: T08LL0003B) is a limited liability law partnership registered in Singapore under the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2005.

The legal framework w.r.t. law of insolvency in India has seen considerable progress since the introduction of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”). The Legislature, taking cue from various judgments passed by the courts and the grey areas identified during the implementation of the provisions of IBC, introduced various amendments from time to time. However, notwithstanding such amendments, various legal questions involving interpretation and implementation of provisions of IBC keep arising posing challenges before the Courts to resolve the same.

In the regime of insolvency and bankruptcy law in India, the question of when and how the liabilities of Personal Guarantors crystallize has become increasingly significant. Recent judgments by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) in Shantanu Jagdish Prakash v. State Bank of India & Ors. (Company Appeal (AT)(Ins.) 1609 of 2024), Mavjibhai Nagarbhai Patel v. State Bank of India & Anr. (Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 1702, 1711 & 1712 of 2024), Asha Basantilal Surana v. State Bank of India & Ors. (Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.

Voor veel mensen betekent een bestuursfunctie binnen een vereniging een betrokken, maatschappelijk engagement. Maar wie bestuursverantwoordelijkheid op zich neemt, draagt ook juridische risico’s. Zeker wanneer de vereniging in financiële problemen raakt. Wat veel bestuurders niet beseffen, is dat zij onder omstandigheden persoonlijk kunnen worden aangesproken voor financiële tekorten na een faillissement.

For many people, a board position within an association means a committed, civic engagement. But those who assume board responsibility also bear legal risks. Especially when the association gets into financial trouble. What many directors do not realize is that, under circumstances, they can be personally liable for financial shortfalls after a bankruptcy.

This article offers insight into when and why directors of associations can be held liable, what legal frameworks underlie this, and how to reduce the risk of personal claims.

In Vesnin v Queeld Ventures Ltd & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 951, the English Court of Appeal has ruled that in an application for recognition at common law of a foreign insolvency, a respondent to that application may have standing to oppose the recognition even if they are not a creditor. The fact that other relief is sought against them, which is contingent on recognition of the foreign insolvency, can and usually will suffice to give them standing to oppose the recognition.

Background

In the recent high-profile decision of Re: Li Yonghong[2025] HKCFI 3307, the Honourable Madam Justice Linda Chan made a bankruptcy order against Mr. Li Yonghong — a businessman best known for his prior ownership of AC Milan. The judgment offers important takeaways for bankruptcy and insolvency practitioners on, inter alia, the resolution of inaccuracies or defects in statutory demands and petitions.

Background