The Federal Court in Brereton, in the matter of ICT Century Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2025] FCA 107 granted the liquidators of ICT Century Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (ICT) a one-year ‘shelf order’, or an extension of time to bring voidable transaction claims under section 588FF(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

Directors beware!

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) by a 2:1 majority in Independent Sugar Corporation Limited v Girish Sriram Juneja and Ors1, has held that in case of resolution plans proposing a combination (i.e., a merger or amalgamation of the entities) of a corporate debtor, the Competition Commission of India (“CCI”) must first grant the necessary approval before such Resolution Plan is placed before the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”) for it

1. Introduction

Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code is a mechanism for debtors to have foreign insolvency proceedings recognized in the U.S. and to have the orders entered by a foreign court in those insolvency proceedings abroad given effect in the U.S.

Key Issues

RECOGNITION OF A FOREIGN MAIN PROCEEDING

The UK Supreme Court’s recent decision in El-Husseini and another v Invest Bank PSC [2025] UKSC 4 has clarified the circumstances in which section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the Act) provides protection against attempts by debtors to “defeat their creditors and make themselves judgment-proof.” This is a critical decision for insolvency practitioners, any corporate or fund which is involved in distressed deals and beyond to acquirers who were not aware they were dealing in distressed assets.

•The limitation law concerns the primary concept of ascribing a fixed time frame within which all legal contentions are required to be raised by parties; the law in this regard is governed primarily by The Limitation Act.

•S. 238A of IBC, 2016 provides:-

“238A. The provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 shall, as far as may be, apply to the proceedings or appeals before the Adjudicating Authority, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, the Debt Recovery Tribunal or the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be.”

在当前的经济条件下，在开曼群岛（“开曼”）或英属维尔京群岛（“BVI”）注册成立的离岸公司（包括作为投资基金开展业务的公司）的股东越来越多地被迫考虑，在董事对公司事务管理不善负有责任时，其对该等董事所享有的权利。尤其是，小股东特别希望了解是否有救济措施，使其能够克服“违法者控制”的局面。换言之，通常董事会的组成和管理是由大股东控制的。在本篇文章中，我们简要介绍了在开曼和BVI两个司法管辖区，董事所承担的职责以及股东可获得的救济措施。

董事职责的范围是什么？

开曼群岛

开曼公司董事的职责规定在普通法中，包括：(i)以公司的最佳利益善意行事的职责；(ii)为适当目的行使其权力的职责（而不得为未授权的目的行使其权力）；以及(iii)不得牟取秘密利润的职责。

英属维尔京群岛