Winding-up proceedings are draconian and can lead to a company’s demise. For this reason the insolvency legislation stipulates that service of a winding up petition cannot take place by post, but instead must be personally delivered to a company’s registered office address.
Key Takeaways:
In insolvency and liquidation proceedings, the question regularly arises of how competing creditor claims should be satisfied. Of particular importance is the treatment of employee claims, as legislators typically seek to ensure their special protection. Hungarian insolvency law addresses this concern by granting certain employee claims a privileged ranking.
When do employee claims take precedence over other creditors?
In this article, we examine (1) the new regime for safeguarding of customer funds applying to UK payment and electronic money institutions, (2) the impact these reforms will have on those firms and (3) in particular, the indirect effect the reforms will have on banks holding safeguarded funds and insolvency practitioners who manage the insolvency of a failed payment or electronic money institution.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”), in the case of IL&FS Financial Services Ltd. vs. Adhunik Meghalaya Steels Pvt. Ltd.1, held that entries in a company’s balance sheet acknowledging outstanding borrowings constitute a valid acknowledgment of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (“Limitation Act”), even if the creditor is not specifically named within the balance sheet.
Introduction
Voluntary liquidation is the mechanism available to solvent limited liability companies in the United Arab Emirates (“UAE”) where the shareholders decide to bring the company’s operations to an orderly end. Unlike compulsory liquidation, which is triggered by insolvency or court order, voluntary liquidation reflects a decision of the shareholders to dissolve the company while it remains able to discharge its obligations in full.
Standard Profil’s scheme of arrangement was sanctioned by the English High Court on 9 September 2025, notwithstanding a recent Frankfurt court decision casting doubt on whether English restructuring plans and schemes of arrangement proposed by German companies would be capable of sanction by the English courts going forward as a result of recognition issues (see ‘More on this topic’).
The Insolvency and Companies Court, in A Company -v- Visionary Future LLC & ors. (unreported), has dismissed an application by a company seeking to strike out, or alternatively restrain advertisement of, a winding-up petition brought by creditors. The judgment underlines the critical importance of providing proper and substantiated evidence in insolvency proceedings.
Lewis Silkin acted for the petitioners (the respondents in the application), who have since been successful in winding up the company in question.
Inthe matter of Trinco (NSW) Pty Ltd (in liq) [2025] NSWSC 993, the New South Wales Supreme Court found Mr Azizi to be a de facto director of Trinco (NSW) Pty Ltd (in liq) (Trinco) and liable for insolvent trading. Trinco’s liquidator was awarded compensation, payable by Mr Azizi.
Introduction