Mediation is a method of resolving disputes through a proceeding conducted by a neutral, independent third party appointed either by the parties or by a court. It offers several potential benefits, including reduced cost and time when compared with judicial proceedings. It also helps parties identify key issues in disputes and evaluate the potential consequences of litigation. There is no harm or risk in attempting mediation, as the parties are not bound by anything discussed during the sessions and, if no agreement is reached, the dispute remains exactly as it was before the process began.

The adoption of mediation in high‑profile in‑court restructurings is at different stages of development worldwide, though the overall trend points to growth. In this global report, Debtwire’s legal analyst team examines the use of mediation across multiple jurisdictions, highlighting local particularities and discussing cases in which mediation has played a meaningful role.

Mediation has a prominent role in complex US Chapter 11 cases 

Mediation remains a key tool in complex Chapter 11 restructurings, providing a structured forum for parties to resolve disputes outside traditional litigation. The process allows stakeholders to negotiate confidentially, reduce costs, and reach outcomes courts cannot easily impose. Many bankruptcy courts encourage mediation, and some — including the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas — have adopted formal programs with approved mediators and standardized protocols. Still, the overall use of mediation has declined modestly since 2023 and has yet to fully rebound, even as it remains valuable in disputes over financing, collateral, and plan treatment.

With multiple large cases pending — particularly in the Southern District of Texas — mediation has become a more prominent topic. The district’s Procedures for Complex Cases[1] allow judges to refer adversary proceedings, contested matters, and other disputes to mediation, though parties may also opt in voluntarily.

First Brands Group

First Brands filed for Chapter 11 protection on 28 September 2025 in the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas before Judge Christopher M. Lopez. The auto parts company’s case quickly became mired in disputes, with multiple adversary proceedings alleging fraudulent or inaccurate invoices, duplicate receivables factoring, improper affiliate transactions, and disagreements over asset ownership and intercompany claims. Tensions also arose over the debtors’ liquidity, including questions surrounding DIP financing availability and the treatment of proceeds from various factoring arrangements.

In January 2026, the bankruptcy court authorized mediation to address these disputes and appointed Southern District of Texas Bankruptcy Court Judge Marvin Isgur as mediator. The process brought together a broad group of stakeholders, including the debtors, the SPV independent manager involved in the receivables issues, the debtors’ ad hoc cross-holder group, the ABL lenders, and the unsecured creditors’ committee (UCC). Although the court initially set a mid-February deadline, mediation has since been extended.

Although the court later imposed an early termination date of 24 February to prompt final offers, the parties jointly sought and received approval to continue mediation under Judge Isgur’s oversight. Mediation was originally scheduled to conclude on March 13 but was later extended by order to advance case resolution talks through the earlier occurrence of certain specified conditions or March 27, 2026. Meanwhile, additional contested matters continue to arise, underscoring the complexity of the case and the continued need for a structured mediation process as a stabilizing force and dwindling funds.

Office Properties Income Trust 

Mediation has been instrumental in resolving disputes in Office Properties Income Trust’s (OPI’s) Chapter 11 case, particularly those involving the company’s 2027 and September 2029 noteholder groups. Early in the case, the 2027 noteholders appealed Judge Lopez’s final DIP financing order, challenging adequate protection, the treatment of the USD 135m original issue discount on their notes, and whether a prepetition default had been triggered. These issues threatened to delay the restructuring and drain liquidity, prompting the court to refer the parties to mediation.

Under Judge Isgur’s guidance, mediation began in November 2025. Although the initial round did not produce a resolution, a second round was later conducted with separate sessions tailored to different creditor constituencies. The earliest settlement reached was between the debtors and the unsecured creditors’ committee, memorialized in a 24 February term sheet. The agreement eliminated one of the two equity rights offerings contemplated in the debtors’ amended Chapter 11 plan and provided for full payment of trade and vendor claims.

By early March, the debtors reached a settlement with the 2027 and September 2029 noteholder groups amending the final DIP financing order. The agreement stayed related litigation, provided for payment of certain 2027 noteholders’ professional fees, and established staged payments totaling USD 60m to the group. The remainder of the claim will be converted into a secured note backed by collateral valued at no less than USD 460m and issued on the plan’s effective date. The settlement resolved the parties’ adequate protection disputes and narrowed the issues remaining for the plan process.

On 16 March the debtors filed a second amended Chapter 11 plan of reorganization and disclosure statement, along with corresponding solicitation procedures reflecting the parties’ prior settlements. However, issues relating to plan confirmation and the valuation of the 2027 Notes’ first-lien collateral remain. In an effort to use mediation to resolve all disputes, the parties again agreed to abate the litigation while settlement discussions continue before Judge Isgur.

FAT Brands

Mediation has also been central to the Chapter 11 cases of multi-brand restaurant franchising group, FAT Brands, which involve disputes between the debtors and various creditor groups, including holders of whole business securitization (WBS) notes. Early on, the bankruptcy court entered an agreed order establishing a mediation process designed to address issues ranging from the debtors’ use of cash collateral to the possibility of appointing a Chapter 11 trustee. Mediation also encompassed broader restructuring topics, including the treatment and influence of the WBS capital structure on the path forward.

Judge Isgur was assigned as mediator and the initial mediation participants included the debtors and an ad hoc group of WBS noteholders. Given the presence of publicly traded securities, the process included confidentiality protections, guardrails on information sharing, and cleansing mechanisms to prevent mediation participants from being left with material nonpublic information.

On 13 February, mediation expanded to permit UCC participation through lead counsel, although it was exempted from sharing in the mediation costs. As discussions continued, the parties jointly moved to extend the mediation termination date — initially set for 2 March and then moved to 9 March. Although mediation deadlines were set, later orders have allowed additional time when negotiations appear productive.

Mediation in the UK

As the UK in-court restructuring landscape continues to have a distinctly litigious flavour since the introduction of the Part 26A restructuring plan (RP) tool in 2020, and the process and procedure for designing and implementing RPs continues to evolve, lessons can certainly be learned from the US approach to mediation.

The UK workout toolkit has developed rapidly in the last five years and, given the contentious climate shows no sign of abating, a pertinent question is how the complexity, costs, delays and pressure on the court system disputes bring can be mitigated.

Back in 2024, Debtwire examined the potential use of mediation in UK RPs, noting that the Hon. James Peck, a retired US bankruptcy judge, had put forward a pitch in the South Square Digest – a publication produced by the UK’s leading set of restructuring barristers – for mediation to be taken up seriously by the UK restructuring community to help mitigate some of the burdens and costs inherent in cram down disputes and possibly improve outcomes under the evolving regime. Peck argued that mediation might be a discretionary means to encourage consensus and reduce the potential for full-blown contested cram down hearings. Since that time, other market players have added their voice, although some are more cautious than others about the role of mediation.

While mediation is utilised in commercial dispute resolution in the UK (and has been part of some large scale cross border insolvency situations such as MF Global) it had yet to become a staple feature of the UK’s workout regime.

Notably, Peck was involved in McDermott’s highly contentious RP, which was sanctioned a little over two years ago. The case was a significant one for the UK market, and illustrated how mediation or a similar dispute resolution mechanism could be useful, given that the Dutch restructuring expert in McDermott, whose role bore certain similarities to that of a mediator, was instrumental in resolving the case. McDermott’s UK RP was part of a wider restructuring effort involving two parallel restructuring plans for the group in the Netherlands under the Dutch Wet Homologatie Onderhands Akkoord process (WHOA) promoted by Dutch group companies. Significantly, the disputes, which spanned jurisdictions, were resolved in accordance with the recommendations of the Dutch restructuring expert. Such an expert can be appointed by the court at the request of certain stakeholders in the context of a Dutch WHOA proceeding, and bears similarities to the role of mediator.

In McDermott’s case, Freshfields’ Michael Broeders was appointed as restructuring expert (herstructureringsdeskundige) after the objections to the plan arose. In sanctioning the UK RP, English judge Mr Justice Michael Green placed much weight on the enhanced returns allocated to the dissenting creditor under the WHOA in accordance with the expert’s recommendations. The case lent support to arguments that there is a place for mediators in the UK regime to avoid unnecessarily protracted and costly court hearings.

2026 case study: Waldorf

Returning to 2026, Waldorf Production, the UK-based independent oil and gas producer, has re-ignited interest in mediation. Following a failed RP attempt last year, Waldorf is currently pursuing parallel RPs to implement a restructuring in the context of a sale process. (Our updated Plan Profile contains further details of the RPs.)

While Waldorf’s 2025 failed RP faced attack from both unsecured creditor Capricorn Energy and UK tax authority His Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (HMRC), Waldorf has since won Capricorn’s backing. HMRC, however, continues its opposition, which is discussed in detail in our analysis.

Based on the evidence filed in the case so far, Waldorf and the supporting steering committee (SteerCo) can be expected to rely heavily on their claims that HMRC was the only creditor that declined to attend a two-day mediation, refused to engage with the proposal and failed to advance its own counter proposal.

According to the papers before the court, in October, given the relevant creditors had yet to reach an agreement on the allocation of the consideration for the sale, the SteerCo became concerned the purchaser may walk away from the transaction as the deadline it had imposed for the creditors to agree upon a lock-up agreement was fast approaching. Given the difference in views that emerged between the creditors, the SteerCo advocated that the creditors participate in a mediation.

The Waldorf group and the other main creditors, including Capricorn, agreed to the SteerCo’s proposal and a two-day mediation was held in October with an experienced restructuring KC, South Square’s Felicity Toube KC, being appointed as a mediator.

Notably, the only relevant creditor that declined to attend the mediation was HMRC.[2] SteerCo’s skeleton argument claimed that, despite HMRC’s refusal to participate in the mediation, the applicable creditors sought to keep HMRC informed in relation to the process, including ensuring that it was sent the substantive papers filed in the mediation.

Following the mediation, Waldorf’s lawyers, White & Case, wrote to the creditors reminding them to submit their “best and final offers” in relation to the allocation of the consideration as originally contemplated by the SteerCo’s initial proposal for mediation (and settled in the terms of the mediation agreement). Taking into account the limited time to agree a proposal and the “very real risk the purchaser may walk away from the transaction, the SteerCo made a number of further concessions and advanced a revised proposal.[3]

Rules of the game 

The UK RP is experiencing a drop in popularity, with last year’s Petrofac decision a major blow.

The allocation of post-restructuring value is a key theme emerging from RP cases that came to a head in Waldorf’s failed 2025 plan, as discussed in this analysis. As things stand, while each RP will be assessed on its own unique facts, it is unclear how much out-of-the-money creditors should walk away with in order for the court to deem the plan “fair” and be persuaded to exercise its discretion to sanction it.

While it is not entirely clear quite what the “rules of the game” now are, and more time is needed for market practice to iron out some of the wrinkles, what we do know is that stakeholder engagement and negotiation is becoming ever-more important since the “trilogy” of RPs to be heard by the Court of Appeal (Adler, Thames Water, and Petrofac) clarified that a RP should reflect genuine efforts at negotiation with out-of-the-money creditors so as to allocate them their proper share of the restructuring benefits. In practical terms, engagement and negotiation with all classes of creditors is now key, as we can expect the court to look at not only the outcome for creditors, but also the process that has been followed.

Given the uncertain climate, and courts placing more emphasis on stakeholder engagement and negotiations to establish fairness, the Waldorf mediation comes as little surprise.

In the UK, it appears that mediation – either pre-filing or as part of the court process – could play a valuable role in reducing full-scale disputes and associated costs. There are, however, two sides to every coin, and some practitioners will no doubt be wary of the implications mediations may have on the RP process  – which has already felt the impact of the new Practice Statement – or even raise issues around confidentiality and transparency. Further, while mediation may work for situations involving a limited number of stakeholders, it would clearly be less straightforward in cases involving a large number of disparate creditors.

Indeed, a panel of legal experts speaking at Debtwire’s 2026 Restructuring Forum touched on mediation when discussing whether, without a Supreme Court decision, the prevailing uncertainty over “fairness” could be reduced through market practice.

South Square’s Daniel Bayfield KC explained that it is up to advisers to work out how to deal with out-of-the-money creditors and what is “fair” and potentially use mediation in their negotiations. However, the barrister had “some difficulties with negotiation holding the answer, because without knowing what the rules of the game are, it’s difficult to know how to negotiate.”

Meanwhile, Kirkland & Ellis Partner Hannah Crawford felt there may be, in theory, the ability to use mediation where there is time to go out and stress test the commercial deal with the out-of-the-money creditors and use that as an indication as to what may be a proper and fair allocation. “That being said, I do think mediation is tricky from a practical perspective – most if not all of the situations which end up in court are typically urgent, often the company is running out of money, and without an automatic stay on creditor enforcement action a timeline extension to allow for the mediation could be precarious,” said Crawford. “I like the theoretical idea of mediation a lot but the practical hurdles feel challenging,” she concluded.

Brazilian statutory guidance strongly incentivizes mediation in debt restructuring proceedings

In Brazil, Federal Law number 13140/2015 (Mediation Law) defines mediation as a way of settling disputes through a proceeding conducted by a third, neutral non-interested person which may be appointed either by the involved parties or a court, provided that the parties agree with the appointment. The mediator lacks decision-making powers, but is tasked with facilitating communication and paving the way for the parties to reach a consensual solution to a dispute.

In addition to the Mediation Law, Brazilian Federal Law number 13105/2015 (Civil Procedure Code – CPC) includes alternative dispute resolution modalities among its pivotal rules, providing that mediation must be incentivized by judges, lawyers and public prosecutors whenever possible. The CPC also sets forth that mediation is governed by the principles of independence, impartiality, autonomy of the will, confidentiality, orality, informality and grounded decision-making.

Brazil is also a signatory of the United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation, also known as the “Singapore Convention on Mediation,” which provides for an internationally consistent framework for the expedited recognition and enforcement of settlement agreements reached during cross-border mediation processes. The international agreement became valid in the country on 6 February 2026, after being signed in June 2021 and ratified in August 2025.

In terms of debt restructuring proceedings, Brazilian Federal Law number 11101/2005 (Bankruptcy Law) lacked provisions regarding mediation until early 2021, when a major reform introduced a set of rules incentivizing and guiding the adoption of mediation either in advance of or throughout an in-court restructuring. Following the law reform, the commencement of a mediation proceeding became one of the requirements for distressed companies to be awarded an injunction preventing creditors from filing or moving forward with individual debt collection measures for up to 60 days, without the need for a bankruptcy filing.

Brazilian legal framework regarding the use of mediation in debt restructuring proceedings is also made up of several guidelines, including those issued by (i) the National Council of Justice (Conselho Nacional de Justiça – CNJ)[4] and (ii) the Federal Council of Justice (Conselho da Justiça Federal – CJF).[5] Although not binding, these guidelines reflect an attempt of standardization in bankruptcy proceedings, thus aiming to provide them with more predictability, legal certainty and effectiveness. They are also intended to guide future rulings on disputes over the issues they provide for.

Mediation in local high-profile in-court restructurings

Over the past decade, mediation proceedings have been adopted as a tool for bankruptcy-related conflict resolution with increasing frequency in Brazil. Following the Oi first[6] judicial recovery case, in which mediations were successfully implemented in different disputes involving creditors, corporate rights of certain large shareholders and telecom regulator ANATEL, mediation has been adopted in several other high-profile cases tracked byDebtwire’s Restructuring Database.

In the case of sugar and ethanol producer Grupo Aralco, a mediation proceeding was also successfully implemented to deal with tax claims and also to define amounts and classes of certain other disputed claims, in advance of a meeting at which prepetition creditors should vote on the company’s restructuring plan.

Mediation was also adopted in the judicial recovery process of cement maker Cimento Tupi to address a dispute involving the company, a group of secured creditors, and two unsecured creditors accused of being related parties improperly added by the company to its creditor list as an attempt to increase the support on its restructuring plan. Once again, the proceeding resulted in an agreement that paved the way for the approval of the restructuring plan presented by the company.

Following the 2021 bankruptcy law reform, several Brazilian large debtors commenced mediation proceedings with a portion of their creditors in order to be awarded provisional injunctions preventing individual debt collection efforts prior to the filing of judicial or extrajudicial recovery proceedings. These companies include environmental and emergency services provider Ambipar, petrochemical producer Unigel, cement maker InterCement, electricity services provider Light, and shipbuilder OSX.

Insolvency mediation on the runway but yet to take off in APAC

The use of mediation in an insolvency setting has been rare in Asia, in large part due to the absence of any US-style mandatory court referral powers. The most notable example might in fact be the mediation process adopted by China Fishery Group in 2020 to resolve its conflicting creditor claims, but even that occurred within the group’s US Chapter 11 proceedings rather than through any formal or informal referral in Asia.

But while stakeholders might have been reluctant to push the mediation button, the region’s regulators and industry bodies haven’t been sitting back, waiting for them to do so.

In Singapore, for instance, mediation has been on the agenda since at least 2016, when the jurisdiction’s Committee to Strengthen Singapore as an International Centre for Debt Restructuring recommended mediation’s use to: (i) resolve individual creditor disputes with a debtor; (ii) manage multiple creditor disputes of a similar nature (along the lines of what occurred in the Lehman Brothers Holdings Chapter 11 cases); and (iii) achieve consensus on the terms of a restructuring plan between a debtor and its creditors, particularly where a debtor is subject to multiple insolvency proceedings (much like in the MF Global proceedings).

Singapore’s judges have also backed the use of mediation. Justice Kannan Ramesh, for instance, noted in his 2019 IM Skaugen decision that there is “tremendous utility in deploying the services of a neutral third party skilled in mediation techniques,” with such a mediator being able to “play the invaluable role of building consensus between the debtor and the creditors in the development of the restructuring plan, and to build trust in the process.”

Calls have grown even stronger for the use of mediation in recent years following the entry into force in 2020 of the Singapore Convention on Mediation. To date, the convention has 59 signatories (including, from an Asia-perspective, Singapore, Australia, China, India, Japan, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, the Republic of Korea), with 20 of those signatories having ratified and introduced its provisions, including Brazil, as mentioned above.

India is arguably even more advanced in its moves to incorporate mediation within its corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP).

In January 2024, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) released a report recommending the phased introduction of a self-contained, voluntary mediation framework within the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code. Under the IBBI’s recommendations, mediation would initially be available in two scenarios: (i) between an operational creditor and a debtor after the operational creditor has applied to commence resolution proceedings against the debtor; and (ii) following the appointment of a committee of creditors within a CIRP, where a 66% majority of the CoC refers a matter (such as an inter-creditor dispute) to mediation.

To oversee, administer, and enforce the insolvency mediation process, the IBBI has proposed that an internal mediation secretariat be established within the National Company Law Tribunal. That secretariat would also manage the appointment of specialized mediators sourced from retired tribunal members, insolvency professionals and advocates. Any mediated settlement agreements would be enforced as an order of the National Company Law Tribunal.

Most view the introduction of such a mechanism in India as being of great importance given the all-too-familiar litigation delays suffered within a CIRP. Former Supreme Court Justice Arjan Kumar Sikri, for instance, has been a vocal advocate for the use of mediation as a means to reducing such delays. And even the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal on the odd occasion promoted its use – a good example being in 2019, when it permitted a debtor to hold mediation talks with financial creditor Intec Capital prior to the formation of a committee of creditors; talks which ultimately led to an amicable settlement of the outstanding debt and permitted Intec’s request for insolvency resolution proceedings to be withdrawn.

Mediation in debt restructuring across the globe – an upward trend

The global statutory guidance and related-caselaw referenced above reveals that mediation can serve as a primary mechanism for addressing disputes and exploring restructuring alternatives in complex secured capital structures, particularly where companies face heavy debt loads and little to no liquidity. When effective, the process preserves confidentiality, reduces litigation costs and delays, and helps align stakeholders toward a consensual outcome that supports the debtor’s liquidity and path to emergence.

As discussed above, bankruptcy‑related mediation is commonplace in complex cases in the US, where court‑proposed programs and protocols, along with certified professionals, play a key role in alternative dispute resolution. In the UK, mediation is not as prevalent as in the US and still encounters some skepticism on practical grounds, including the challenges of coordinating multiple disparate creditors and uncertainty about procedural expectations. Despite such resistance, the use of mediation has been increasingly encouraged in recent years, with growing stakeholder engagement.

In Brazil, the use of mediation in bankruptcy cases has also increased steadily, particularly after the legal reform that encouraged mediation as a means of securing court protection against debt‑collection efforts before a bankruptcy filing. In the APAC region, by contrast, mediation in insolvency matters remains underused despite notable legislative efforts to promote it, with India standing out as the most advanced jurisdiction in terms of initiatives to incentivize mediation in bankruptcy proceedings.

Overall, there appears to be a global trend toward greater use of mediation to improve the efficiency of in‑court debt restructuring proceedings.

Related Links (Acess Required):

Debtwire Restructuring Database: First Brands Group
Debtwire Restructuring Database: Office Properties Income Trust
Debtwire Restructuring Database: FAT Brands Inc.
Debtwire Restructuring Database: Waldorf Production UK plc (RP, Feb 2026)
Debtwire Restructuring Database: Waldorf CNS (I) Ltd (RP, Jan 2026)
Debtwire Restructuring Database: CB&I UK Limited (McDermott International) (RP, Sep 2023)
Debtwire Restructuring Database: Oi
Debtwire Restructuring Database: Aralco
Debtwire Restructuring Database: Cimento Tupi
Debtwire Restructuring Database: Ambipar
Debtwire Restructuring Database: Unigel
Debtwire Restructuring Database: InterCement
Debtwire Restructuring Database: Light
Debtwire Restructuring Database: OSXDebtwire Restructuring Database: China Fishery Group

This article should not be relied upon to make investment decisions. Furthermore, this article is not intended and should not be construed as legal advice. ION Analytics does not provide any legal advice, and clients should consult with their own legal counsel for matters requiring legal advice. All information is sourced from either the public domain, ION Analytics data or intelligence, and ION Analytics cannot and does not verify or guarantee the adequacy, accuracy or completeness of any source document. No representation is made that it is current, complete or accurate. The information herein is not intended to be used as a basis for investing and does not constitute an offer to buy or sell any securities or investment strategy. The information herein is for informational purposes only and ION Analytics accepts no liability whatsoever for any direct or consequential loss arising from any use of the information contained herein.

Endnotes:

[1] Other significant venues, such as New Jersey and Delaware, have similar procedures built into their local rules regarding mediation. Adversary proceedings are automatically referred to mediation, while contested matters may be required by the court or requested by the parties. Mediation generally stays pending discovery unless the court orders otherwise.

[2] HMRC stated that it did “not believe that a mediation . . . to be a mechanism in which HMRC can effectively participate in.”

[3] In particular, to accommodate concerns raised by the other creditors, the SteerCo proposed to share the restructuring benefits available to each creditor pro rata to the nominal value of the claims of the creditors (as opposed to the 85%/15% split as originally proposed), based on the methodology set out in the SteerCo proposal (and notwithstanding the other creditors being unsecured).

[4] Guidelines number 58/2019 and 71/2020.

[5] Guidelines number 190, 194, 201, 202 and 222.

[6] The telecom services provider commenced a judicial recovery process in June 2016, and then again in March 2023.

Arthur Almeida is a former restructuring attorney. Prior to joining Debtwire as a Legal Analyst, he practiced with Passos & Sticca Advogados Associados, and worked in the legal department of Banco Fibra S.A. Arthur’s experience includes participating in major civil litigation on credit recovery, representing creditors such as banks and financial institutions in high-profile restructurings. He obtained his Master’s in Commercial Law from Universidade de Sao Paulo (at which he is also a researcher in the Insolvency Law Study Group – GEDEC), and his LL.M in Financial and Capital Markets Law from Insper Instituto de Ensino e Pesquisa.

Prior to joining Debtwire, Stephanie Bentley served as a judicial clerk for a judge with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Stephanie is a former practicing restructuring and financial litigation attorney, during which time she primarily represented Chapter 11 trustees, debtors-in-possession, financial institutions (as secured creditors and defendants in adversary proceedings), and unsecured creditors. 

Dawn Grocock is a former practising restructuring and insolvency lawyer. Prior to joining Debtwire as a Legal Analyst, Dawn practised with DLA Piper UK LLP and Stevens & Bolton LLP, as well as working in legal know-how for LexisNexis. Dawn’s experience includes advising lenders, insolvency practitioners, directors and creditors in relation to insolvency and restructuring issues. Dawn worked on several large-scale restructurings

Prior to joining Debtwire, Ashley Bell was a Partner at DLA Piper in Hong Kong with a practice focused on cross-border restructuring and insolvency matters. Ashley’s team advised lenders, funds, officeholders and debtors on a range of high-profile distressed scenarios across APAC (including in Australia, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand) and worked closely with local counsel to coordinate related proceedings in the Caribbean, the UK, and the US. Ashley is a Fellow of INSOL International and is qualified in Australia, Hong Kong, and England & Wales.