In the recent case of Mitchell and another (Joint Liquidators of MBI International & Partners Inc (In Liquidation)) v Sheikh Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber [2025] UKSC 43, the UK Supreme Court clarified the scope of fiduciary duties owed by directors and controllers of companies following the commencement of liquidation. The Court determined that a director whose statutory powers have ceased may still owe fiduciary duties if he purports to exercise authority over the company’s assets and intermeddles with them dishonestly.
As 2025 draws to a close, this newsletter reviews key developments that have shaped the commercial disputes landscape over the past year and offers our views on significant English court decisions. We then look ahead to the trends likely to define 2026. We also reflect on another productive and successful year for Hausfeld’s Commercial Disputes team.
HOW DID 2025 CHANGE THE LEGAL LANDSCAPE?
Financial services
key takeaways
The landmark decision by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Stevanovich v Richardson1provides authoritative guidance on the proper interpretation of “person aggrieved” under section 273 of the BVI Insolvency Act, which deals with standing to challenge a liquidator’s decision.
In Vesnin v Queeld Ventures Ltd & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 951, the English Court of Appeal has ruled that in an application for recognition at common law of a foreign insolvency, a respondent to that application may have standing to oppose the recognition even if they are not a creditor. The fact that other relief is sought against them, which is contingent on recognition of the foreign insolvency, can and usually will suffice to give them standing to oppose the recognition.
Background
Investors or companies may, as part of their wider investment thesis or business plan, make distressed asset purchases to strategically acquire assets which they may otherwise not be able to conveniently or affordably obtain. While the face value of the asset purchased may be lower than that acquired in a “solvent” transaction, purchasers should be aware that such acquisitions carry a heavy tail liability risk, which may take the form of a potential clawback as a transaction at an undervalue.
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
The Supreme Court has handed down a decision in Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) and othersv Tradition Financial Services Ltd [2025] UKSC 18, which clarifies the parties who ar
On 7 May 2025, the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) handed down a judgment providing useful guidance on the meaning of “fraudulent trading” within s.213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (Insolvency Act) and how the test in s.32(1) of the Limitation Act 1980 (Limitation Act) operates, in Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) v Tradition Financial Services Ltd [2025] UKSC 18 (Bilta). In this article, we give a brief summary of the facts, issues and rulings in the judgment and its practical implications for Hong Kong’s corporate insolvency regime.
Background