Key Takeaways

In Nordic Power Partners P/S & Ors v Rio Alto Energia, Empreendimentos E Participacoes LTDA & Ors [2025] EWHC 2875 (Comm), the Commercial Court reconfirmed its willingness to grant interim relief to an energy investor in the context of international projects (here related to Brazil). Specifically, this decision provides an interesting insight into steps that can be taken to prevent funds being received by a party that may soon become insolvent (which risks creditors being left without a satisfactory remedy once a dispute is resolved).

In this issue, we spotlight the unfolding litigation between the UCC and Oaktree in TPI Composites’ ongoing bankruptcy, which appears to be headed for a settlement. This case is unusual in that the uptier transformed former equity holders into senior creditors rather than elevating existing lenders.

The Unsecured Creditors Committee Challenge

On insolvency, the pari passu principle applies, meaning unsecured creditors rank equally in the distribution of available assets. That principle helps explain why a creditor who has obtained a judgment debt but has not completed enforcement (for instance by obtaining a final charging order) will usually be barred from doing so once insolvency intervenes.

Overview

In a recent judgment in Target Insurance Company Limited v Nerico Brothers Limited & Lee Cheuk Fung Jerff [2025] HKCA 1024 the Court of Appeal has clarified that a director can be made personally liable for the costs incurred by a company under their control and that unreasonably opposes its winding up.

Background

The concept of an insolvency officeholder “adopting” employment contracts—well-established in UK administration law—does not have a direct equivalent in Hungarian insolvency practice. Nonetheless, understanding when a court-appointed trustee or restructuring administrator assumes employment obligations is crucial for both practitioners and employees.

Hungarian Context

In Hungary, the key officeholders in insolvency or restructuring proceedings are:

Introduction

On 12 November 2025, the Federal Court delivered an important judgment that brings much-needed clarity to the powers, responsibilities, and protections available to liquidators acting under the Companies Act 2016 ("CA 2016").

The decision provides authoritative guidance on what constitutes "costs and expenses of winding up" under section 527(1)(a), and on the high threshold applicable to efforts to remove or sue a liquidator.

Brief background