Modified universalism, as applied by the European Insolvency Regulation (EIR), allows not only for parallel main and secondary insolvency proceedings, but also for the creation of separate insolvency estates and the appointment of insolvency practitioners in each proceeding. Parallel proceedings can create a plethora of legal questions driven by the competing interests of insolvency practitioners, each driven by their individual aim to maximise the value of their estate. This was highlighted in the Air Berlin case that was decided by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in 2024. This case triggers various questions related to the role of insolvency practitioners and the aim of maximising the value of the insolvency estate. This article seeks to assess whether the value of the insolvency estate should be increased through the cooperation of insolvency practitioners in cross-border insolvency cases and also explore what legal remedies can be invoked when a dispute arises between insolvency practitioners related to the treatment of assets in their estates. The article analyses the implications of the CJEU's decision in the Air Berlin case to accept the locus standi of a secondary insolvency practitioner to bring actions to set aside against the main insolvency practitioner.

A key goal of the Capital Markets Union (CMU) Action Plan is to establish a functioning bond market, offering businesses finance options beyond traditional bank loans and creating a stable source of financing for the real economy across the EU. To support this, the EU has introduced the Directive on Preventive Restructuring Frameworks to facilitate restructuring possibilities for distressed firms. While this is a positive step, there is a risk of undoing any progress made in creating a vibrant bond market. In the absence of a proper power balance among stakeholders in restructuring, a shift towards more legal rights in favour of secured creditors could significantly weaken the legal position of unsecured creditors, as it could result in less value and control for these creditors. This is particularly relevant given that the corporate bond market is composed predominantly of unsecured bonds. The implications of strengthening the position of secured creditors for the position of bondholders are often overlooked because Europe is much more of a bank-financed debt market and can be seen as still being in its early phase of significantly expanding the bond market. This paper analyses how the shift in power balance in restructuring in favour of secured creditors weakens the legal position of unsecured bondholders, with a focus on the position of secured creditors under the Preventive Restructuring Directive. It further discusses how the failure to maintain a proper balance in restructuring procedures could have stability implications for both unsecured bondholders and the overall economy. Strengthening secured creditors' rights could make companies more reliant on bank loans, exposing them to banking system shocks. Furthermore, uncertainty around these reforms might lead to improper risk pricing in bonds, potentially triggering fire sales when risks materialize.

Registries of Indigenous knowledge and centralised Indigenous authorities to oversee these have been advanced as mechanisms to prevent the misappropriation of Indigenous knowledge within Western intellectual property (IP) systems. This article critically examines the potential and limitations of such registries and centralised authorities in the context of Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ). Drawing on semi-structured interviews with 12 Māori creators and intermediaries working within the NZ innovation ecosystem, the article explores Māori perspectives on the benefits, risks, and implications of establishing a registry of mātauranga Māori (Māori knowledge) and a centralised authority to govern it. While participants identified possible advantages—including evidentiary functions, support for commercialisation, educational value for third parties, and improved recognition within Western regulatory and IP systems—none viewed registries or centralised authorities as unproblematic. Several participants raised concerns that registries and centralisation are Western constructs that are ill-suited to reflecting either key Māori values and relationships to knowledge, particularly whakapapa (genealogy) and hononga (relationships), or te ao Māori (the Māori worldview). The perception of risks relating to loss of control, commodification, governance, and access—especially in the context of digital technologies and artificial intelligence—was prominent. The article concludes that, although registries may enhance the operation of Western IP systems, they risk undermining Māori knowledge systems and self-determination unless they are fundamentally reimagined to transcend colonial logics.

This article provides an overview of the patent landscape in relation to PGRFA-based inventions involving naturally occurring (“native”) traits and related Digital Sequence Information/Genetic Sequence Data (DSI/GSD). In particular, it focuses on the potential of patent claims to limit others' uses of PGRFA and related DSI/GSD on which the protected invention is based and/or other PGRFA in which equivalent traits and homologous DSI features are naturally present. We identified a core set of 399 patent documents (first filings)—representing a relatively small percentage of the overall global patent activity as captured through the most relevant PGRFA indicators—that have the potential to limit the use of the PGRFA materials from which these inventions were derived in further research and breeding. Based on the analysis of the claims in these patent families, we also identified 12 types of claims that have medium to high potential to affect the relevant restrictions. However, we were unable to assess the extent to which materials, whose access is facilitated under the framework of the FAO International Treaty on PGRFA, were used in the development of these patented inventions. This is because the current features of the database architecture of the international patent system neither require nor make this data available in a searchable and transparent manner for inventions that incorporate, or are based on, PGRFA obtained from the Plant Treaty's Multilateral System (MLS). Therefore, we propose some options that could be considered in order to address the issues raised in this study, including means to ensure “findable” disclosures of MLS materials upon which patented inventions are based, as well as the further analysis and the development of guidelines, under the auspices of the Plant Treaty, to address the relationship between different types of patent claims and the provisions of Treaty Article 12.3(d), which states that: “Recipients shall not claim any intellectual property or other rights that limit the facilitated access to the plant genetic resources for food and agriculture, or their genetic parts or components, in the form received from the Multilateral System.”

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly reshaping the administration of corporate liquidation. Beyond its established role in financial prediction and data analytics, AI is now assisting insolvency practitioners in identifying the onset of financial distress, managing creditor communications, tracing and valuing assets and enhancing procedural efficiency. These developments challenge not the normative foundations of liquidation but the institutional and operational architecture through which it is administered, supervised and regulated. This article examines the integration of AI into liquidation through three analytical dimensions: reality, the practical deployment of AI tools in detecting insolvency risks and supporting liquidators; destiny, the evolving transformation of professional duties, evidentiary standards and regulatory oversight as AI becomes embedded in insolvency administration; and fantasy, the speculative yet instructive prospect of automated liquidation systems capable of managing corporate wind-ups with minimal human intervention. Methodologically, the article adopts a doctrinal and comparative legal analysis, complemented by an interdisciplinary approach. It argues that AI can enhance the efficiency, accuracy and transparency of liquidation, provided that its deployment remains subject to robust standards of explainability, professional accountability, procedural fairness and meaningful human oversight. The future of liquidation therefore lies not in replacing human judgement with automation, but in augmenting professional decision-making through accountable and auditable AI systems.

While global frameworks like the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (“TRIPS”) encourage trade secret protection, India's historical resistance to classifying them as intellectual property has created a fragmented system reliant on outdated common law principles. This article critiques India's newly proposed Protection of Trade Secrets Bill, 2024 (“Bill”) as a potential turning point, juxtaposing its promises against persistent ambiguities in defining trade secrets, inconsistent judicial remedies, and the rise of Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) driven challenges. Through empirical analysis of Right to Information (“RTI”) cases, we expose how trade secret claims are weaponized to withhold public interest data, from facial recognition technologies to pharmaceutical pricing, raising urgent questions about accountability in the digital age. By dissecting legal theories, global precedents, and India's legislative pivot, this article argues for a recalibrated balance: one that safeguards innovation without stifling transparency, proposing a novel Trade Secrets Registry as a blueprint for harmonizing secrecy with public interest. While AI serves as a key context, the article's broader aim is to develop a principled framework for trade secret and confidential information in India.

Rapid digitalisation has reshaped the enforcement landscape of IPR, intensifying challenges posed by large-scale online piracy and cross-border digital platforms. In response, Indonesia and Malaysia have adopted distinct cyber-enforcement strategies to protect creative industries and economic interests. This study employs a qualitative and comparative legal approach, supported by documentary analysis and enforcement-oriented case review, to examine how both jurisdictions address digital IPR violations. The findings show that enforcement in both countries is structured around three core mechanisms: administrative access blocking, cooperation with digital intermediaries, and court-mandated injunctions. Indonesia prioritises rapid regulatory intervention through the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs under Ministerial Regulation No. 5 of 2020, enabling swift and broad blocking actions. Malaysia applies a hybrid model combining judicial injunctions, coordinated initiatives such as CyCORE, and regulatory directives issued by the MCMC, resulting in stronger procedural durability against evasion tactics. The comparative analysis indicates that Indonesia excels in enforcement speed and regulatory reach, whereas Malaysia demonstrates greater sustainability and legal accountability. The findings also indicate that sustainable cyber-IPR protection requires not only enforcement measures but also preventive efforts through digital literacy and public awareness. The study emphasizes the significance of transparency safeguards, adaptive monitoring, and regional collaboration in enhancing effective and proportionate digital intellectual property rights enforcement in Southeast Asia.

Patent systems worldwide face criticisms over declining patent quality and increasing patent quantity. While most research focuses on strengthening examination rigour, this article turns attention to relatively underexplored patenting incentives. It examines how the investment discourse, which frames patent law as a means of protecting investment, transforms patenting incentives through two paradoxical mechanisms. First, the investment discourse propertizes patents, transforming them from means fostering innovation into investment assets pursued for their own sake. Second, while attempting to reduce innovation uncertainty, the patent system introduces legal uncertainty that applicants seek to mitigate or exploit. These mechanisms result in the proliferation of low-quality patents, particularly when patents serve as financing assets, strategic assets, and rent-seeking assets. Building on this analysis, it makes three contributions. First, it reveals that the incentives embedded in patent law not only induce inventions that would not have occurred absent patent protection, but also the pursuit of patents as ends in themselves. Second, it reveals that quality concerns often disguise concerns regarding investment security. Third, it proposes a moderate fee adjustment to steer patenting incentives away from patent acquisition and toward genuine innovation. Future research should aim to enable reforms that align patenting incentives with the normative objective of patent law.

When a shipping group enters insolvency, two bodies of law collide. Cross-border insolvency law, built on the recognition machinery of the UNCITRAL Model Law, asks the courts of every affected jurisdiction to cooperate with a single main proceeding. Maritime law treats the vessel as an object of local jurisdiction that may be arrested wherever it calls. This article argues that the conflict should not be resolved by subordinating arrest to insolvency, or insolvency to arrest, but by a functional inquiry that distinguishes security-preserving arrest from priority-creating arrest. It proposes a six-factor calibrated test for courts faced with a maritime arrest after the commencement or recognition of a foreign insolvency proceeding and applies that test to a Hanjin-type collapse. The test gives presumptive——though rebuttable——weight to the nature of the claim and the timing of the arrest, isolates seafarers' wage claims as a distinct category in which both maritime-lien priority and the social-protection regime of the Maritime Labour Convention 2006 bear on the analysis, and treats ‘adequate protection’ not as a fixed moment but as the management of a depreciating, income-earning asset over the life of the proceeding. The test is shown to be expressible in civil-law as well as common-law categories, and its limits——the breadth of some domestic arrest powers——are tested against German and South African material.

This lecture in honour of the late Gabriel Moss QC and Ian Fletcher QC examines the challenge of climate-related financial risk. Prudential regulators and central banks recognize that the systemic nature of climate-related financial risk makes it an emerging vulnerability relevant to cross-border insolvency resolution. The Bank for International Settlements is concerned about potential ‘green swans’, where timing of climate change impacts is uncertain, but there is a high degree of certainty that risks will materialize and negatively affect the financial system. Bank supervisors can mitigate these risks by requiring banks to embed climate in their business strategy, risk management, and governance. Using examples of both hard and soft law tools in Brazil, the UK, and other jurisdictions, the lecture reflects on the most effective regulatory strategies to mitigate risk and build on opportunities.

Intellectual Property (IP) is emerging as an important asset, contributing to innovation, economic growth and global trade. The global economy has also digitalized at an unprecedented rate, transforming the methods of IP creation, its management and trade. This transaction brings forth complex taxation challenges related to IP transactions. This paper explores the intersection of IP and taxation, emphasising the challenges and opportunities in cross-border IP transactions. It seeks to analyse the key taxation issues related to IP in the context of international trade, including transfer pricing, direct tax implications, and global tax reforms aimed at addressing harmful tax practices. Further, in examining the major “Base Erosion and Profit Shifting” (BEPS) risks in direct taxation, the paper delves into preferential tax regimes, transfer pricing risks, and artificial internal trading of intangibles. The OECD and G20's BEPS Action 5 project on harmful tax practices and their implementation in India are also critically analysed. This helps in examining how these global frameworks are addressing the tax challenges posed by IP. Finally, the paper examines key aspects of IP taxation in India, discussing relevant domestic frameworks and international agreements that shape India's approach to tax IP. Issues such as licensing, royalties, transfer pricing policies, and GST implications for IP transactions are explored. By addressing these key areas, the paper highlights the need for effective tax policies that align with the realities of the digital economy and international trade.

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) reconfigures the foundations of copyright by introducing multi-actor creation and platform-mediated dissemination. Within a dual-dimensional framework combining the expressive function of originality and the disseminative function of platform power, four scenarios are developed to calibrate incentive structures and institutional efficiency. Comparative analysis of US, EU, and China's judicial practices reveals divergent yet complementary approaches: US courts emphasize market substitution and fair use's fourth factor; the EU advances restriction-based remuneration and extended collective licensing; and Chinese courts adopt a human-centered authorship model that recognizes verifiable expressive contribution. Law-and-economics reasoning supports replacing exclusivity with incentive-compatible tools—combining remuneration rights, collective management, and transparency obligations. Authorship is substantiated through process-evidence chains, while platforms assume proportional compliance duties aligned with their market power. By integrating comparative jurisprudence into this expressive–disseminative framework, copyright governance can evolve from static ownership allocation toward dynamic incentive regulation, achieving balanced innovation, equitable distribution, and long-term cultural sustainability.