The ability of a bankruptcy trustee or chapter 11 debtor-in-possession ("DIP") to assume, assume and assign, or reject executory contracts and unexpired leases is an important tool designed to promote a "fresh start" for debtors and to maximize the value of the bankruptcy estate for the benefit of all stakeholders. Bankruptcy courts generally apply a deferential "business judgment" standard to the decision of a trustee or DIP to assume or reject an executory contract or an unexpired lease.

Perhaps given the relative rarity of solvent-debtor cases during the nearly 45 years since the Bankruptcy Code was enacted, a handful of recent high-profile court rulings have addressed whether a solvent chapter 11 debtor is obligated to pay postpetition, pre-effective date interest ("pendency interest") to unsecured creditors to render their claims "unimpaired" under a chapter 11 plan, and if so, at what rate. This question was recently addressed by two federal circuit courts of appeals. In In re PG&E Corp., 46 F.4th 1047 (9th Cir.

The ability of a bankruptcy trustee or chapter 11 debtor-in-possession to sell assets of the bankruptcy estate "free and clear" of "any interest in property" asserted by a non-debtor is an important tool designed to maximize the value of the estate for the benefit of all stakeholders. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Illinois recently examined whether such interests include "successor liability" claims that might otherwise be asserted against the purchaser of a debtor's assets. In In re Norrenberns Foods, Inc., 642 B.R. 825 (Bankr. S.D. Ill.

In Gulfport Energy Corp. v. FERC, 41 F.4th 667 (5th Cir. 2022), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit tripled down on its nearly two-decades-long view that filed-rate contracts regulated under the National Gas Act (the "NGA") and the Federal Power Act (the "FPA") can be rejected in bankruptcy without the consent of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC"). Reaffirming its previous rulings in In re Mirant Corp., 378 F.3d 511 (5th Cir. 2004), and In re Ultra Petroleum Corp., 28 F.4th 629 (5th Cir.

Even before chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code was enacted in 2005 to govern cross-border bankruptcy proceedings, the enforceability of a foreign court order approving a restructuring plan that modified or discharged U.S. law-governed debt was well recognized under principles of international comity. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently reaffirmed this concept in In re Modern Land (China) Co., Ltd., 641 B.R. 768 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2022).

When lenders use an aggressive strategy to deal with a financially troubled borrower that ultimately files for bankruptcy protection, stakeholders in the case, including chapter 11 debtors, trustees, committees, and even individual creditors or shareholders, frequently pursue causes of action against the lenders in an effort to augment or create recoveries.

Whether a contract is "executory" such that it can be assumed, rejected, or assigned in bankruptcy is a question infrequently addressed by the circuit courts of appeals. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit provided some rare appellate court-level guidance on the question in Matter of Falcon V, L.L.C., 44 F.4th 348 (5th Cir. 2022). The Fifth Circuit affirmed lower-court rulings determining that a surety contract was not executory because the surety had already posted irrevocable surety bonds and did not owe further performance to the debtors.

Federal district courts, with the consent of the parties, are authorized by statute to refer "civil matter[s]" to magistrate judges for the purpose of conducting all proceedings and entering a judgment in the litigation. In the case of an appeal to a district court from a bankruptcy court, however, this statutory authority arguably conflicts with another statutory provision dictating that appeals from a bankruptcy court order or judgment be heard by a "district court" or a "bankruptcy appellate panel." This apparent conflict was recently addressed by the U.S.

一、股东的责任

一般来说，股东只就其认购股份的出资承担责任，而如果公司无偿债能力进而清盘，股东层面并不负有任何法律责任。但仍需注意可能存在的例外情况，例如：

第一，穿透公司法人人格向股东追索。如某人在已有债务的情况下，通过将财产转移给新设立公司的方法逃避该既有债务，法院可能判令要求穿透公司面纱。而在实践中该法律原则因要求严格，很少能够被使用。

第二，股东参与到公司有欺诈目的的资产转移当中，或作为不正当的协助者、不正当的收受财产者，或者参与策划该欺诈行为等。

二、董事和公司管理人员的责任

在清盘开始后，董事实际上失去了管理公司的权力，但是由于董事的地位，其需要在以下两种情形下承担责任：一是如果他违反了原本就对公司负有的义务，清盘人代表公司能够向董事进行追责；二是在清盘前和清盘过程中，董事均负有特定的责任。

一方面，董事负有一般的对公司的信义义务，包括为公司利益行使权利，为公司避免利益冲突等，以及其他法定义务，比如董事必须采取一切合理步骤确保公司备存及保留会计记录至少7年（如有），以及必须确保公司按时提交财务报表等。如这些行为已经发生，董事可能需要承担责任。

系列导语

在各类跨境投资的项目中，投资人最担心的问题莫过于被投企业的财务状况出现困境，进而影响其持续经营能力和偿债能力并最终演变为债务危机。这些投资人可能是企业公募或私募债券的持有人、享有抵押品的银团放贷机构、各类融资架构中的夹层债权人，或是享受回购权或强制出售权的权益投资人。

跨境投资项目下的债务重组，往往会涉及多法域下的复杂法律问题、救济方式和司法程序。特别是在典型的境外持股架构下，当开曼公司作为境外母公司出现债务危机时，如何通过BVI及香港子公司逐级下沉债权人的风控或增信机制，如何衔接和落地相关境内外救济措施，如何最终帮助债权人控制或取得境内子公司的资产或其提供的担保品或抵押品，这些问题的妥善解决是债务重组成功的关键。这要求参与跨境债务重组项目的专业执行团队具有跨市场和跨国界的运作能力、多法域的法律和司法实操经验、高效的项目管理能力以及深刻的风险认知和风险反制筹划能力。由于各个法域下的质权之设立、优先顺位和有效性对于债权人和质押权人来说至关重要，加强对主要离岸法域对质押行为的程序性规定和质权有效性的判定认识能有效地防范潜在的交易风险。