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.

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 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

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.

Introduction

The Appellate Division of the Singapore High Court has in Goh Jin Hian v Inter-Pacific Petroleum Pte Ltd (in liquidation) [2025] SGHC(A) 7 allowed Dr Goh’s appeal against a US$146 million award, holding that breach of the duty of care, skill and diligence (the "Care Duty") does not automatically establish loss.

前 言

在全球化经济纵深发展与企业出海战略持续推进的背景下，开拓海外市场、融入全球产业链及供应链是中国内地企业未来重点发展的战略选择。然而，跨境商业活动在带来机遇的同时亦伴随着跨法域的风险与挑战，跨境破产无论在理论还是实务都具有相当的复杂性。

本文将以主要利益中心原则（Centre of Main Interests，以下简称“COMI”）为出发点，结合实务案例浅析COMI原则在部分海外国家的适用及中国内地债权人的应对策略，为出海企业提供跨境破产风险管理的参考依据。

一、跨境破产视域下的管辖权

“跨境破产”概念及与之相关的规范均正式确立于联合国国际贸易法委员会1997年颁布的《跨境破产示范法》（UNCITRAL Model Laws on Cross-Border Insolvency，以下简称“《示范法》”）。《示范法》最为核心的内容便是确立了COMI在跨境破产管辖权认定上的重要作用，虽然COMI原则在近年受到来自“承诺规则”与“事后选择规则”等新兴理论的挑战[1]，但作为近30年来在全球63个法域普遍适用的基本准则[2]，掌握COMI在不同国家或地区的司法实践适用在当下仍具有重要的现实意义。

A. Introduction

The Singapore’s Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Natixis, Singapore Branch v Seshadri Rajagopalan and others and other appeals [2025] SGCA 29 serves as an important decision for the intersection between insolvency and admiralty laws. The decision addresses a dispute concerning admiralty statutory liens, examining whether the judicial managers of an insolvent ship owning company acted wrongfully by procuring the offshore arrest and judicial sale of a vessel, despite the appellants having issued admiralty in rem writs against it in Singapore.