• Any insolvency will have significant implications for property rights – and none more so than an administration. Knowing the legal rules, and implementing them effectively, is critical for both landlord and insolvency practitioners (IPs) if they are to achieve the best out of a bad situation.
• The moratorium on legal proceedings created by an administration limits some of a landlord’s options. He will need to think laterally in relation to existing arrears and consider other avenues of recovery; eg former tenants, guarantors and subtenants.
• As for the longer term, neither landlord nor insolvency practitioner (IP) will have unfettered control over the future of the property. The IP is likely to require the landlord’s consent before he can assign the lease – although the circumstances in which he could refuse are heavily circumscribed. Conversely the landlord will need the court's permission to bring the lease to an end by forfeiture

As many commentators have been predicting for sometime, the post Christmas trading period has seen a number of retailers fall into insolvency. Among the high-profile casualties have been Past Times, Peacocks and La Senza. Moreover, the end may not be in sight. Recent analysis published by RSN Tenon in Decemberpredicted that one in eight retail companies are facing insolvency. For most major retailers, property overheads will be a major cost of the business. How these are dealt with will, therefore, be an important issue for any IP to resolve in his efforts to make a distribution for creditors.

• A "Quistclose" trust can occur if monies paid to a Fund by investors have not actually been invested prior to the Fund's insolvency and the monies returned to the investors.
• Once subscription monies are actively invested by the Fund even if no share certificates are issued, those monies will generally not be impressed with a trust and will form part of the Fund's assets.
• The separate status of segregated accounts in a Bermuda segregated account company is to be regarded as sacrosanct save in the case of compelling equitable grounds.

• The absence of a mechanism for co-operation and communication between courts regarding the determination and application of foreign law in avoidance actions fails to implement the stated goals of the Model Law and adds  expense, delay, and uncertainty to proceedings
• This article considers how the US courts have had to try to develop their own solutions to realise the stated goals of the Model Law with varied success. It suggests some solutions on how the US courts could approach the problem.

• Law 38/2011 is a positive step but not ambitious enough.
• A cram down mechanism has been created but will not work.
• A quick sale of the business is made possible, which may be considered as an alternative to a pre-pack agreement.
• Fresh money provided in refinancing or composition agreements is granted special ranking status

The Spanish insolvency system is governed by Law 22/2003  of 9 July (the Insolvency Law). The Insolvency Law revamped the previous insolvency system by establishing a single insolvency procedure applicable to all commercial and non-commercial debtors. The procedure may end with a composition agreement or with liquidation. The whole insolvency process is managed under the supervision of a judge specialised in commercial matters, including insolvency matters, who appoints an insolvency trustee.The number of insolvency proceedings dealt with by these courts has significantly increased in the current economic climate. In order to keep up with the times, the Spanishinsolvency system has recently been reformed by Law 38/2011 of 10 October (Law 38/2011), which amends Law 22/2003. Law 38/2011 entered into force on 1 January 2012.