The landmark decision by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Stevanovich v Richardson¹provides authoritative guidance on the proper interpretation of “person aggrieved” under section 273 of the BVI Insolvency Act, which deals with standing to challenge a liquidator’s decision.

This article examines whether a delay in implementing the Resolution Plan equates to failure of the plan or can timelines for implementation be extended?

Power to extend timelines

The High Court sanctioned Madagascar Oil Limited’s restructuring plan, exercising cross class cram down. The judgment deals with a few now familiar points: what is the relevant alternative? Can it be a different deal? As well as touching on a few novel ones in an unusual two class only plan: was there in fact an in the money class enabling cross class cram down? Almost a third of the judgment is devoted to international recognition and effectiveness of the plan in Madagascar and Mauritius, an unusually detailed analysis, but required here given the specific facts of the case.

1 | 15 Introduction The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC/Code) is a landmark legislation which was enacted in 2016 to put in place a consolidated and holistic legal framework for resolution of stressed assets in India. Since its enactment, IBC has been one of the most dynamic legislations which has undergone several revisions on account of various learnings arising out of resolution of large volume of stressed assets in its initial phases.

In a significant further application of the Court of Appeal’s reasoning in Adler, Thames Water and Petrofac, the High Court declined to sanction a cross-class cram down restructuring plan proposed by Waldorf Production UK Plc.

In a difficult economic climate, commercial landlords may fear that tenant insolvencies mean no one will foot the bill for dilapidations claims at lease expiry – but they are not without recourse.

A. Introduction

The Singapore’s Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Natixis, Singapore Branch v Seshadri Rajagopalan and others and other appeals [2025] SGCA 29 serves as an important decision for the intersection between insolvency and admiralty laws. The decision addresses a dispute concerning admiralty statutory liens, examining whether the judicial managers of an insolvent ship owning company acted wrongfully by procuring the offshore arrest and judicial sale of a vessel, despite the appellants having issued admiralty in rem writs against it in Singapore.

Nicola Sharp looks at the reasons why the court granted a £5m WFO against directors of a company in liquidation.

The High Court has granted a Worldwide Freezing Order to the value of over £5 million against directors of a company in liquidation, who are also husband and wife.

The couple, Sameer Rizvi and Iryna Dubylovska were the only acting directors and shareholders of the company.

Underlying claim for misfeasance

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) has issued a discussion paper inviting public comments on proposals aimed at enhancing the integrity of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The key measures proposed include:

This week’s TGIF considers the recent Supreme Court decision of Re ML & NB Pty Ltd [2025] VSC 444. It concerns the extent to which a plaintiff can rely on a statutory demand issued by a supporting creditor to satisfy the presumption of insolvency.

Key takeaways