This article discusses the defining features of Bermuda’s insolvency landscape and the primary insolvency and rescue procedures available under Bermuda law, including compulsory liquidations, provisional liquidations and schemes of arrangements. The case of Chishti v Afiniti Ltd is presented as a recent example of a company successfully availing itself of a restructuring plan through the use of ‘light touch’ provisional liquidation.

Despite meeting statutory jurisdictional requirements under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006, the High Court declined to exercise its discretion in favour of sanctioning Waldorf Production UK Plc’s restructuring plan in August 2025due to concerns about fair allocation of value and lack of meaningful engagement with unsecured creditors.

Welcome to the final edition of Buddle Findlay's insolvency and restructuring update for 2025. As we head towards the silly season and a well-deserved break for many, it's an opportunity to reflect on what has been a very busy year in the insolvency and restructuring space.

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

Introduction

The Federal Court has recently delivered a decision in the case of Victor Saw Seng Kee v Wong Weng Foo & Co; London Biscuits Berhad (In Liquidation) (Civil Appeal No.: 02(f)-61-12/2024) ("London Biscuits"), addressing four important questions of law. This ruling provides clarity on the powers of liquidators, the role of creditors in appointing liquidators, and the treatment of employee-related payments during winding up.

Background and Procedural History

The insolvency framework governing real estate projects in India has undergone a significant transformation with the recognition of “Reverse CIRP”, a judicial innovation designed to protect homebuyers’ interests while ensuring completion of stalled real estate projects. This mechanism was recently endorsed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) in the Satish Chander Verma v. Grand Reality Private Limited^[1] ("Grand Reality Case").