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。

企业出现债务危机后，可能最终不得不走向破产清算的结局。通常而言，处于债务危机中的企业已存在无偿债能力（insolvent）的情况，不能藉由公司自行注销的程序完成注销公司；否则，未经清盘程序注销的公司有可能仍被债权人申请恢复，并继续追索债务，届时会给公司股东或董事带来不必要的麻烦。相应地，虽然清盘后解散的公司在法律上仍有可能被恢复，但仅限于清盘过程中遗漏重大债权或资产的情况等，通常不会出现这种情况。

根据《公司（清盘及杂项条文）条例》（香港条例第32章）第169条，香港公司清盘方式可分为两大类：第一类是由法院强制清盘；第二类是自愿清盘，而自愿清盘又可以分为股东自愿清盘与债权人自愿清盘两种。各路径均能令香港公司清盘，并在彻底厘清与处理资产及债务情况下宣告公司解散。本文为上篇，将简要介绍香港公司清盘的程序。

一、股东自愿清盘

股东自愿清盘是指公司可以自行由股东会进行特别决议，或董事会层面作出决议，宣布公司进行清盘，并委任清盘人进行清盘程序。根据《公司（清盘及杂项条文）条例》（香港条例第32章）第228条、229条和233条的要求，董事需要在清盘决议前的5个星期内发出一份《有偿债能力证明书》，说明董事已经详细地调查过公司事务，并认为在未来12个月内能够还清各项债务。