There is something to be said for “assume the worst” when it comes to defects in administration appointments and extensions. The court has taken this approach in a few cases where, rather than trying to work out the intricacies and effect of a defect on an appointment or extension, it has assumed the worst (i.e invalidity) and made a retrospective order to remedy the position.

1. INTRODUCTION

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2026 (the "AmendmentAct"), represents the most sweeping reform of India's insolvency regime since the enactment of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the "Principal Code"). 

The statutory restructuring plan mechanism, introduced by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020, introduced a flexible, court-sanctioned tool to rescue financially distressed businesses. The take-up in England and Wales has been widespread, with several well-known names having plans approved. However, despite being available since summer 2020, Scottish restructuring plans remain remarkably rare.

In what was deemed an “unprecedented” application, the High Court recently refused to confirm the appointment of an interim examiner to a special purpose vehicle incorporated to develop commercial property. The Court determined that the company was not the “type of company for which examinership was designed”. The decision highlights some of the factors that the Court will consider when exercising its discretion to confirm the appointment of an examiner.

This article is part of a series exploring court actions available under the Companies Act (Chapter 386 of the Laws of Malta). Each article gives a practical overview of a specific legal remedy or procedure involving court supervision; outlining when it applies, the steps required, and the purpose behind it. It is intended as a useful reference point rather than an in-depth academic analysis.

It is not uncommon for a claimant who has issued a professional negligence claim to realise, once limitation has expired, that he has sued the wrong defendant. One potential escape route for claimants in this predicament was shut down on Friday 6 February 2026 by the Court of Appeal in the conjoined appeals in Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50. 

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Court or New York Court) has denied Xinyuan Real Estate Company Ltd. (Xinyuan or Debtor)’s motion to dismiss an involuntary chapter 11 case filed against it by a group of noteholders.

The ruling, made on March 3, 2026, has implications for the interplay between United States bankruptcy proceedings and foreign schemes of arrangement, particularly when the foreign scheme is at an impasse.

Below, we discuss the background of the decision and its practical implications for foreign companies.