In a recent decision, In re Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., No. 18-10518 (KG) (Bankr. D. Del. Nov. 13, 2018), Judge Kevin Gross of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware held that the mutuality requirement of section 553 of the Bankruptcy Code must be strictly construed, declining to find mutuality in a triangular setoff between the debtor, a parent entity that owed the debtor money, and that entity’s subsidiary, which was a creditor.

During this mostly quiet week in restructuring, most of us are either away on vacation (think beach or ski) or home for the holidays, maybe back in our hometowns. For me, it’s always the latter, and home for the holidays is Virginia Beach, Virginia, where I sit while I write this blog post (alas, not the beach vacation some of you may be enjoying; my relatives live about 20 minutes from the beach and the high temperature this time of year is usually in the 40s).

In Judge Glenn’s recent lengthy decision recognizing and enforcing a restructuring plan in the chapter 15 proceedings of In re Agrokor1, a Croatian company in Croatian insolvency proceedings, he highlighted that the concept of comity – respect for rulings in other countries – remains an important U.S.

If you were to walk down Fifth Avenue and see a store displaying a white apple suspended in a large glass case, more likely than not you would immediately think of the California-based tech giant who shares its name with the nutritious snack. Similarly, if the person walking in front of you on your way to the Apple store lifted her heel to reveal a candy-apple red shoe sole, more likely than not the name Christian Louboutin would pop into your head.

In a recent decision, the Fifth Circuit narrowly held that federal law does not prevent a bona fide shareholder from exercising its voting right in the company’s charter to prevent the filing by the company of a bankruptcy petition merely because it is also an unsecured creditor. In re Franchise Servs. of N. Am., Inc., 891 F.3d 198, 203 (5th Cir. 2018).

It’s been an interesting couple of weeks for bankruptcy at the United States Supreme Court with two bankruptcy-related decisions released in back-to-back weeks. Last week, the Supreme Court issued an important decision delineating the scope of section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code (discussed here [1] for those who missed it).

上一篇我们谈到诉讼主体的确定问题，本文将从担保的视角对债券持有人的权利救济予以分析。

保证人单方出具《保证函》的效力

任何在中国内地（“”）注册成立的企业，如不能清偿到期债务，并且资产不足以清偿全部债务或者明显缺乏清偿能力的，可由该企业或其债权人（“”）提交破产申请，继而根据《中华人民共和国企业破产法》（“《破产法》”）对该企业发起破产法律程序。但是，长期以来，备受业内人士诟病的是，中国法院迟迟未对破产申请实施立案登记制度。在此背景下，最高人民法院（“”）于2016年7月颁布指导通知[1]（“《2016年最高院通知》”），旨在简化和规范登记破产案件的立案受理工作。

最高院通知：优化立案程序

Despite the initial glee of the prospect of a United States that was independent of Middle East oil, beginning in the fourth quarter of 2014, the price of oil started dropping precipitously.  As noted in a recent article, over 80 bankruptcies in the oil industry were filed in 2015, up 471 % over calendar year 2014.  

Anyone investing equity in an enterprise, whether creating a start-up or purchasing an established company, is a natural optimist.  The hope is that the business will continue to perform well and yield its owners substantial profits year-after-year (and then maybe a hefty return upon exit).  But, as those of us in restructuring know, not every company enjoys positive returns all the time.  Businesses go through down cycles for different reasons – whether it be the overall economic climate (think 2008), issues specific to a particular industry (think dropping oil prices), a gr