11 U.S.C. § 365(c)(2) says (emphasis added):

The English Court of Appeal has recently provided important guidance on transactions at an undervalue pursuant to s.238 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA 86”) in the case of TAQA Bratani Ltd v Fujairah Oil and Gas UK LLC.

While Chapter 11 does not require debtor insolvency, it does require good faith (applicable to the petition and the plan), which for solvent debtors seeking to reject and modify lease-counterparty rights, includes establishing some level of financial distress susceptible to resolution through the plan process.

Key takeaways

The Supreme Court of India ('Court') in UV Asset Reconstruction Company Limited v. Electrosteel Castings Limited, Civil Appeal No. 9701/2024, has delivered a critical judgment clarifying the legal boundaries between a Deed of Undertaking and a Contract of Guarantee under Section 126 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (‘Act’). The Court's decision underscores that mere commercial nomenclature and internal funding arrangements do not satisfy the rigorous legal requirements of a guarantee.

Factual Background

Dentons Hong Kong LLP secured an important judgment for foreign insolvency practitioners from the Hong Kong Court on 20 January 2026, regarding recognition of office holders in the context of restructuring (as opposed to liquidation/winding-up) of a company, which will potentially have significant implications both in Hong Kong and elsewhere in the common law world.

Introduction

The Court of Appeal in Desa Tiasa Sdn Bhd v CME Group Bhd & Anor [2025] MLJU 4345 (“Desa Tiasa“) has clarified an important point of law on the standing of unsecured creditors in judicial management (“JM“) proceedings. It has confirmed that unsecured creditors have no right to intervene or to be heard in an application for a judicial management order (“JMO“), unless such right is expressly provided for by statute or subsidiary legislation.

Section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code protects purchasers of assets in a bankruptcy sale. The provision promotes finality of bankruptcy court orders approving sales and is intended to maximize the value that a debtor or bankruptcy trustee is able to realize in a sale of bankruptcy estate assets by providing third-party purchasers with certainty that the validity of a bankruptcy sale will not be subject to subsequent challenges.

在 Re Lu Zhonglou[2025] HKCFI 6165 一案中，林泽明聆案官以债权人在申请准许呈请破产令及申请替代送达命令时，未有履行“充分及坦诚披露”的义务为由，撤销破产令并驳回破产呈请。

重要事实与背景

吕先生自约 2010 年起一直是呈请人赌场的长期客户。2021 年 12 月，他签署一份信贷协议，获批可观的博彩信贷，其后新加坡法院就相关欠款作出判决。该判决其后在香港根据外地判决登记制度注册并部分清偿，仍有约 7,080 万港元未偿还。呈请人其后送达法定要求书，并以单方面方式取得准许呈请破产令及替代送达命令；吕先生于 2025 年 4 月被宣告破产，其后以送达存在缺陷及重大不披露为由，申请撤销破产令。

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its recent judgment, examined two (2) important issues under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”). The first concerned the parameters governing the admission of a real estate project into the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”), while the second related to the locus standi of a homebuyers’ association or society seeking to intervene or participate in insolvency proceedings against the developer.

On January 20, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued its unanimous 9-0 opinion written by Justice Alito with a concurrence by Justice Sotomayor in Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton and addressed whether vacating a void judgment has a time limit. Prior to the decision, there was an 11-1 circuit split, and the majority view had been that parties were permitted to move to vacate void judgments irrespective of how much time had passed.