applied on an entity-by-entity basis under the
WHOA. AI Developments in Legal Practice The second panel turned to artificial intelligence’ s growing footprint in insolvency and restructuring practice. Speakers from Singapore, China, Japan, Mexico, and Italy shared how AI is being adopted, and where it is being restrained, across their respective legal markets.
Keith Tnee described a careful, incremental adoption: AI generating chronologies and case summaries, but decision-making authority remaining firmly with human lawyers. He flagged three published cases in which Singapore lawyers were sanctioned with personal costs for citing AI-hallucinated cases, a powerful cautionary tale. Karla Silva highlighted AI’ s promise for the high-volume administrative tasks that typically slow Mexican insolvency proceedings, while Carlo Ghia introduced“ Lexroom,” a local Italian AI tool designed to augment rather than replace lawyers. Dr. Shuai Guo noted that AI has not yet been widely applied in China’ s legal sector, though internet courts represent an early frontier. Rikita Karakawa added a Japanese perspective on the technology’ s trajectory.
A lively exchange emerged around regulatory boundaries. Could restrictions on the unauthorized practice of law apply to AI platforms? Singapore’ s guidance places ultimate responsibility squarely on the lawyer, but other jurisdictions remain in early stages of rulemaking. The panel also tackled a lighter but telling point:
the telltale stylistic tics of AI-generated drafting, including excessive em dashes, overuse of adverbs, repetitive sentence construction, and the emerging stigma these carry. The session concluded with a hotly contested interactive exercise pitting AI tools against human lawyers on case analysis, reinforcing the consensus that AI is a powerful assistant but not yet a substitute for professional judgment.
Restructuring and Insolvency in an Era of Tariffs, Trade Wars, and Sanctions
The third panel confronted what may be the defining macro challenge of 2025 – 2026: the return of aggressive U. S. tariff policy and its cascading global effects. The discussion traced a dramatic timeline: the initial imposition of at least 10 % tariffs on all trading partners under IEEPA on April 2, 2025(“ Liberation Day”), the U. S. Supreme Court’ s February 2026 ruling shutting down the use of IEEPA for tariffs( by which point $ 166 billion had been collected), and the administration’ s swift reimposition under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Dr. Christian Hilpert observed that Europe’ s direct economic exposure has been limited, but the uncertainty itself has become the main headwind— businesses are“ pricing in uncertainty” rather than reacting to concrete tariff levels. He cited the Turnberry deal, which set a ceiling of 15 % tax on the U. S. side with zero reciprocity, as a“ price for certainty” for European businesses. Martha Wyrick noted that defining
continued
on page 59
37