Introduction
An amalgamation or reconstruction of companies under sections 366 and 370 of the Companies Act 2016 ("CA 2016") is a common tool for corporate restructuring in Malaysia. It enables the seamless transfer of assets and liabilities from the transferor to the transferee, typically within group structures where both companies share a common ultimate holding company.
The Supreme Court of India’s (“Supreme Court”) decision in the case of Kalyani Transco vs M/s Bhushan Steel and Power Limited1 and connected appeals raises some serious legal issues. We understand from the public domain that parties are considering filing review and curative petitions. Without expressing any views on the judgement, set out below is a summary of the key findings and directions of the Supreme Court.
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI), through its press release dated May 30, 2025, has outlined the key features of the Fourth Amendment to the Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons (CIRP) Regulations, 2016, which was notified on May 26, 2025. These amendments are designed to streamline and enhance the effectiveness, transparency, and inclusivity of the corporate insolvency resolution process.
Switzerland is known for its efficient legal system and pro-enforcement stance. However, if you are a foreign insolvency practitioner handling bankruptcy proceedings with ongoing litigation in Switzerland, you may face some procedural hurdles.
This article outlines the effects of a foreign bankruptcy decree in Switzerland and explores the available options to initiate or continue litigation.
WHAT HAPPENS?
Foreign insolvency practitioners are barred from litigating without prior recognition
Upcoming Lexology Index research – June to August 2025
Report Title | Research begins | Submission deadline (referees and work highlights) | Research ends | Survey link | Research contact |
Introduction
Under Brazilian law, the concept of objective arbitrability, as established by the Arbitration Law (Law No. 9,307/1996), refers to disputes involving rights of a patrimonial nature, provided that such rights are freely disposable by the parties involved.
A recent amendment to the Brazilian Bankruptcy Law (Law No. 11,105/2005) established that the commencement of judicial reorganization proceedings by a distressed company does not entail the inability to submit disputes to arbitration.
Recent amendments notified by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) require resolution professionals, with creditors’ approval, to intimate the Adjudicating Authority of the non-submission of the repayment plan by personal guarantors.
Accordingly, Regulation 17B has been introduced in the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Regulations, 2019.
Kingsley Napley is pleased to report the judgment of Mrs Justice Joanna Smith DBE in the case of Re MPB Developments Ltd [2025], which represents an excellent result for our client.
We act for the petitioners in long running litigation. Two years ago, our clients presented a creditors’ winding up petition, together with a contributory’s winding up petition on the just and equitable basis and an unfair prejudice petition.
Introduction
With Directive (EU) 2019/1023, the European Union has created a uniform framework for pre-insolvency restructuring measures. The goal is to enable companies in financial difficulties to restructure at an early stage, thereby avoiding insolvency and preserving jobs. In Germany, the Directive was essentially implemented through the Act on the Stabilization and Restructuring Framework for Enterprises (StaRUG), which entered into force on 1 January 2021.
Objectives of the Directive and the German Legislator
Introduction
On 20 May 2025, Mr Justice Marcus Smith handed down his eagerly-awaited judgment sanctioning the two inter-conditional restructuring plans (the Plans) proposed by members of the Petrofac Group. The judgment raises issues described as “going to the heart of the Part 26A regime” and is significant as the first case to consider the application of the Court of Appeal’s ruling in Thames Water.
The judgment addresses three particularly interesting points: