Introduction
In Singapore, judicial managers ("JMs") appointed over a company are empowered to conduct a range of acts relating to the company's business. However, JMs face removal if they fail to adhere to the legislative framework on judicial management. In Tay Lak Khoon v Tan Wei Cheong [2025] SGCA 41, the Singapore Court of Appeal ("CA") set out the applicable test for when a JM may be removed for cause. In particular, the CA considered whether a JM may be removed for a decision based on legal advice.
In Yeo (liquidator), in the matter of Tuftex Carpets Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2025] FCA 1200 the liquidators sought approval from the court to enter into a settlement agreement. The claims underlying the settlement agreement were against the former director and parent company for insolvent trading and the resulting loss.
Key Takeaways
In Re Resource Development Group Limited (Administrators Appointed) [2025] WASC 408, the Court granted relief to the voluntary administrators of Resource Development Group Ltd (RDG) from personal liability under a loan arrangement and extended time for the registration of a related security interest.
Key Takeaway
In Re Bayview Health – Matilda Bay Pharmacy Pty Ltd; ex parte Smith & Jacobs [No 2] [2025] WASC 405, the Court held that a failure to provide the 14 days’ notice of a board meeting, required by a shareholder agreement, to appoint a voluntary administrator, was a procedural irregularity that could be cured.
Key Takeaway
On 26 August 2025, the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) introduced the SIAC Restructuring and Insolvency Arbitration Protocol (Protocol), which took effect immediately.
Liquidator remuneration in insolvency proceedings often raises difficult questions; especially in large corporate collapses where the work is extensive and the stakes are high. Courts must balance fair compensation with creditor protection, but approaches to fee assessment have varied across jurisdictions, leading to uncertainty and dispute.
In Otway (liquidator), in the matter of AMD Freight Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2) [2025] FCA 1169 the Federal Court of Australia considered an application for termination of a winding up under the Corporations Act brought by the liquidators of AMD Freight Pty Limited (In Liquidation) (Compan
According to the latest statistics from the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), the construction industry has faced sustained and accelerating financial distress over the past four years. Since FY 2021-2022, the number of insolvency appointments has almost tripled, with nearly 4,900 cases in FY 2024-2025 alone. And, the 744 cases already recorded for FY 2025-2026 indicate the construction industry continues to suffer severe financial distress.
In a recent decision, In the matter of Toys “R” Us ANZ Limited (subject to deed of company arrangement) [2025] FCA 1135, the Federal Court provided important clarification as to its discretionary power to permit the administrator of a deed of company arrangement to transfer share in the company.
Inthe matter of Trinco (NSW) Pty Ltd (in liq) [2025] NSWSC 993, the New South Wales Supreme Court found Mr Azizi to be a de facto director of Trinco (NSW) Pty Ltd (in liq) (Trinco) and liable for insolvent trading. Trinco’s liquidator was awarded compensation, payable by Mr Azizi.