The La Perla case represents one of the first real tests of cross-border insolvency between Italy and the United Kingdom in the post-Brexit landscape. The well-known lingerie brand, founded in Bologna in 1954, became embroiled in a complex corporate crisis that culminated in November 2023 with the opening of compulsory liquidation proceedings before the High Court in London against La Perla Global Management (UK) Limited (LPGMUK).

The High Court has dismissed an application to set aside a statutory demand, providing helpful guidance on the high bar debtors must meet to establish a “genuine and substantial dispute” in insolvency proceedings, particularly where challenges are based on default interest, alleged oral representations and Consumer Credit Act 1974 (“CCA 1974”) arguments.

Background

Summary

It has been a while since we have had any cases challenging the fairness of a CVA, but in this recent Scottish decision where HMRC challenged the approval of Petrofac’s CVA on the basis of fairness, the court was required to consider HMRC’s contention that the CVA unfairly prejudiced its interests.

Introduction

When a company goes into insolvent liquidation, maximising recovery for the company’s legitimate creditors takes highest priority.

In order to better protect the interests of creditors, Singapore law has long recognised that a company in liquidation should be protected from frivolous lawsuits, in order to ensure that the liquidation process is carried out smoothly and efficiently without incurring additional costs depleting the company’s asset pool. This protection comes in two ways:

はじめに

会社の破産手続が開始されると、会社の正当な債権者のための回収の最大化が最重要の法益となる。

会社の資産を枯渇させるような追加費用の発生を回避して清算処理を円滑かつ効率的なものにすることにより債権者の利益保護を図る趣旨で、シンガポール法においては、清算処理中の会社を濫用的な訴訟から保護すべきであると長い間認識されてきた。かかる保護は、2つの方法で行われている：

1. 2018年倒産・再生・清算法（以下「IRDA」という。）の規定に基づき、裁判所の許可がない限り、清算処理中の会社に対して法的手続を開始することはできない。
2. 裁判所の許可がない限り、会社のliquidator、すなわち当該会社の清算処理を行う管財人や清算人に対して、いかなる法的手続も提起できない。これは判例法に定められたコモンロー上の原則である。

この点、会社の清算処理を進める過程で、管財人や清算人が第三者と個別契約を締結する必要が生じることがある。その場合、そのような個別契約から生じる訴訟手続も裁判所の保護の対象となるかどうかが問題となる。

In Thailand, the intersection of corporate insolvency and director liability raises critical questions for company leaders. While the law does not impose a duty on directors to commence formal insolvency proceedings, it does create potential liabilities for failing to address a company’s deteriorating financial health. Moreover, directors who continue to operate a business while insolvent may face exposure if their actions are found to be fraudulent.

Der EuGH hat mit Urteil vom 19.03.2026 (C-43/25, „SML Maschinen") entschieden, dass sich der Empfänger von Rückzahlungen auf ein Gesellschafterdarlehen nicht auf Art. 13 EuInsVO 2000 (bzw. Art. 16 EuInsVO n.F.) berufen kann, um ein Rückforderungsverlangen des Insolvenzverwalters abzuwehren, wenn dieses der Durchsetzung des insolvenzrechtlichen Forderungsnachrangs dient.

Sachverhalt

r1//./r2Capital Market06Dispute Resolution11Fintech20International Trade/ WTO27Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA)34Restructuring and Insolvency45Sports and Gaming49White Collar Crime03Competition Law08Employment Law15Infrastructure and Energy24Media and entertainment31RBI & FEMA40RERA47Technology51r3MASTER CIRCULAR FOR ISSUE OF CAPITAL ANDDISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTSThe Securities and Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”) hasissued an updated Master Circular1for Issue of Capital andDisclosure Requirements (“SEBI ICDR Master Circular”),consolidating all extant circulars and directions issued unde

The Hong Kong Court has recently handed down a landmark decision in Re USUM Investment Group Limited [2026] HKCFI 1320, addressing the scope of its power to recognise restructurings approved by non-Hong Kong courts and the extent of assistance it may grant.  In doing so, the Court recognised restructuring proceedings commenced in the Mainland, clarified the distinction between “recognition” and “assist