Chinese Enterprise continued from page 55 reveals about the future direction of cross-border insolvency cooperation in Asia. For China and Singapore, the implications are particularly noteworthy. Existing judicial engagement, growing economic interdependence, and a developing body of cross-border insolvency jurisprudence provide a solid foundation for deeper cooperation. Although institutional and legal differences would require careful accommodation, these challenges appear manageable, particularly in light of the experience gained through the Mainland China – Hong Kong insolvency cooperation mechanism.
The future of Asian cross-border insolvency cooperation will undoubtedly continue to be influenced by the UNCITRAL Model Law. Yet Asia ' s legal diversity suggests that legislative harmonization alone is unlikely to provide all the answers. Flexible, pragmatic, and institutionally sensitive forms of judicial cooperation will remain essential. In this respect, the
Singapore- Indonesia Insolvency MOU may represent more than a bilateral experiment. It demonstrates how judicial cooperation can bridge differences in legal systems and facilitate practical solutions to increasingly complex cross-border insolvency challenges. For China and Singapore, whose economic ties continue to deepen and whose courts have already begun to engage with one another in insolvency matters, the MOU provides a valuable point of reference.
Whether a formal China- Singapore insolvency MOU ultimately emerges remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that the region is entering a new phase in which judicial cooperation is becoming an increasingly important complement to legislative harmonization. The Singapore- Indonesia initiative may therefore offer not only lessons for China and Singapore, but also a glimpse of the future architecture of cross-border insolvency cooperation in Asia.
Public Policy Exception continued from page 21 More broadly, bankruptcy courts considering section 1506 challenges to recognition of foreign proceedings remain focused on the overall
56 fairness of the foreign insolvency regime rather than the specific conduct underlying a 1506 objection. 19
while preserving certain rights of the objecting party, the dispute was later settled); but see Docket No. 72, Objection to Motion for Recognition of Foreign Proceeding and Request for Certain Related Relief, 29 – 39( arguing that monetization of cannabis-related assets would violate public policy); see also, e. g., Arm Ventures, LLC, 564 B. R. 77, 86( Bankr. S. D. Fla. 2017)( holding that plan that proposed to rent space to a medical marijuana business violated Bankruptcy Code section 1129, requiring that a chapter 11 plan is“ proposed in good faith and not by any means forbidden in the law ").
19
See In re Prince Glob. Holdings Ltd., No. 26-10769( MG), 2026 WL 1694259( Bankr. S. D. N. Y. June 11, 2026)( overruling section 1506 objection to recognition
However, many of these decisions leave open whether courts consistently will recognize and enforce foreign plans that contravene other fundamental principles of the Bankruptcy Code. continued on page 57
of BVI proceedings because the objector failed to demonstrate that ex parte communications between the insolvency administrator and the BVI Attorney General“ jeopardize [ d ] the fairness and impartiality” of the proceedings and conceded that the BVI Insolvency Act is generally fair); see also Wincurza v. Scott( In re Canterbury Securities, Ltd.), 675 B. R. 109, 121( S. D. N. Y. 2025)( affirming recognition of Cayman Islands proceeding that was fair and afforded objectors due process despite section 1506 challenge based in fraud allegations that had been dismissed by the foreign court and noting that section 1506 is not intended as a vehicle by which creditors may collaterally attack foreign court rulings).
56