The UK Supreme Court recently handed down a judgment in Tradition Financial Services Ltd v Bilta (UK) Ltd & Others[1] in which it considered the scope of section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986, specifically whether those beyond the small group of individuals with controlling or m

Subchapter V of chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code provides a streamlined reorganization process for small business debtors. Similar to a normal chapter 11 case, subchapter V allows a debtor to cramdown a plan without the approval of the unsecured class as long as certain requirements are satisfied.

The Protection of Employees (Employers’ Insolvency) (Amendment) Bill 2025 aims to provide greater protection to employees where their employer becomes insolvent. The Bill will allow greater access to a Social Insurance Fund to protect employee pay-related entitlements and claims for historic entitlements over the previous 40 years. The devil is in the detail, however, with very specific caps and limitations.

In Re King & Wood Mallesons and other matters [2025] SGHC 67, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore (High Court) granted recognition and reliefs under the UNCITRAL Model Law on CrossBorder Insolvency (Model Law) in respect of a consolidated reorganisation of three Chinese companies in the People’s Republic of China (PRC). This decision provides guidance to insolvency office-holders appointed under PRC law on the procedural requirements to seek recognition under the Model Law in Singapore.

Introduction

In December 2024, Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) released an updated version of Regulatory Guide RG 217. The guidance is designed to assist directors in complying with their duty to prevent insolvent trading. It sets out four key principles for directors to avoid insolvent trading, explains the safe harbour defence (which offers protection from personal liability), and clarifies ASIC’s approach to assessing breaches of duty and the application of the safe harbour defence.

Court held that an insolvent company was required to provide adequate security when enforcing an adjudication decision.

Background

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), was enacted to inter alia provide a consolidated framework to resolve insolvency in a time-bound manner and to maximise the value of assets. This objective is further aided by a moratorium under Section 14 that halts legal proceedings against the corporate debtor, and the immunity provision under Section 32A, which offers a fresh slate to resolution applicants upon plan approval.

June 2025 – The current economic situation is causing an increasing number of lessees to have concerns about the financial situation of their lessors and the stability of their lease rights. In this context, the question often arises as to what effect (i) the opening of insolvency proceedings against a lessor's assets, and/or (ii) the (compulsory) sale of the property on which the leased premises are located have on the lease agreement.  

1.  Opening of insolvency proceedings against the assets of a lessor

The Supreme Court of Appeal (“SCA”) recently handed down judgment in Prinsloo v Majiedt N.O. and Another, addressing the protection of benefits of long-term life insurance policies under section 63 of the Long-term Insurance Act, 1998 (“LTIA”). The case specifically considered these protections in the context of marriage in community of property and the subsequent sequestration of the joint estate.

In a significant decision with far-reaching consequences for the financial and insolvency ecosystem, the Kerala High Court (“High Court”) in J.C. Flowers Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala adjudicated upon the levy of stamp duty on assignment agreements executed under Section 5 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act”).