INTRODUCTION
If a company faces a situation threatening insolvency, the satisfaction of creditors' claims is at risk. In such cases, the company's managers must prioritize the interests of the creditors, and for failure to do so, they are subject to civil and/or criminal liability, which we describe in this article.
Overview
In Yeo (liquidator), in the matter of Tuftex Carpets Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2025] FCA 1200 the liquidators sought approval from the court to enter into a settlement agreement. The claims underlying the settlement agreement were against the former director and parent company for insolvent trading and the resulting loss.
Key Takeaways
On 26 August 2025, the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) introduced the SIAC Restructuring and Insolvency Arbitration Protocol (Protocol), which took effect immediately.
Insolvency and liquidation proceedings inevitably raise the question of how competing creditor claims are ranked. One area of particular importance is the treatment of employee claims, as legislators typically grant them special protection to safeguard livelihoods. Hungarian insolvency law reflects this policy by granting priority status to certain employee entitlements.
When Do Employee Claims Rank Ahead of Other Creditors?
What are antecedent transactions in insolvency?
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 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.
- INTRODUCTION:
Madam Bernice was a well-known entrepreneur in Nigeria in the 1970s and 1980s. She had a big business dream to start a family fashion business that would outlive her and be a blessing to future generations. That dream did come to fruition, as “Bernice Fashion Enterprise” was established sometime in 1972 and became a registered company in 1978, acquiring a new name “Bernice Fashion Limited.” (real names withheld).