The court-fashioned doctrine of "equitable mootness" has frequently been applied to bar appeals of bankruptcy court orders under circumstances where reversal or modification of an order could jeopardize, for example, the implementation of a negotiated chapter 11 plan or related agreements and upset the expectations of third parties who have relied on the order.
To promote the finality and binding effect of confirmed chapter 11 plans, the Bankruptcy Code categorically prohibits any modification of a confirmed plan after it has been "substantially consummated." Stakeholders, however, sometimes attempt to skirt this prohibition by characterizing proposed changes to a substantially consummated chapter 11 plan as some other form of relief, such as modification of the confirmation order or a plan document, or reconsideration of the allowed amount of a claim. The U.S.
One year ago, we wrote that, unlike in 2019, when the large business bankruptcy landscape was generally shaped by economic, market, and leverage factors, the COVID-19 pandemic dominated the narrative in 2020. The pandemic may not have been responsible for every reversal of corporate fortune in 2020, but it weighed heavily on the scale, particularly for companies in the energy, retail, restaurant, entertainment, health care, travel, and hospitality industries.
In 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit made headlines when it ruled that creditors' state law fraudulent transfer claims arising from the 2007 leveraged buyout ("LBO") of Tribune Co. ("Tribune") were preempted by the safe harbor for certain securities, commodity, or forward contract payments set forth in section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code. In that ruling, In re Tribune Co. Fraudulent Conveyance Litig., 946 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 209 L. Ed. 2d 568 (U.S. Apr.
导言
Introduction
2021年5月14日,最高人民法院与香港特区政府签署了《最高人民法院和香港特别行政区政府关于内地与香港特别行政区法院相互认可和协助破产程序的会谈纪要》(以下简称“《会谈纪要》”),为进一步细化两地破产案件协助机制,最高人民法院发布了《关于开展认可和协助香港特别行政区破产程序试点工作的意见》(以下简称“《试点意见》”),在破产程序的互相认可、互认的案件范围、互认的法律效力、两地司法机构的协助方式等方面为涉及两地的破产工作提供了创新性指引。我们从《试点意见》的诞生背景入手,分析此次《试点意见》的创新亮点,作为在内地和香港特别行政区均专业从事债务重组业务的律师事务所,展望两地破产协助的前景。
一、《试点意见》的诞生背景
在《中华人民共和国香港特别行政区基本法》的效力前提下,香港特区可以与全国其他地区的司法机关以协商方式进行司法协助。在法院判决及仲裁裁决的互认与执行等方面,内地与香港地区已签署八项民商事司法协助安排,但此前两地的司法协助将破产领域除外。《中华人民共和国企业破产法》第五条对跨境破产作出原则性规定,尚无制度性的司法文件。此番《试点意见》的出台,是对两地司法协助在破产领域的拓展性探索,对于破产从业人员参与跨境程序、保全企业资产、参与衍生诉讼与仲裁、境外债权人参与破产程序而言,《试点意见》无疑具有开创性意义。
Introduction
Business Bankruptcy Filings
Public Company Bankruptcies
Notable Bankruptcy Rulings
Legislative Developments
One year ago, we wrote that the large business bankruptcy landscape in 2019 was generally shaped by economic, market, and leverage factors, with notable exceptions for disastrous wildfires, liabilities arising from the opioid crisis, price-fixing fallout, and corporate restructuring shenanigans.
The year 2020 was a different story altogether. The headline was COVID-19.
引言:近期某集团破产清算案中,关于债务人与境外基金债权人之间因“维好协议”引发的纠纷事项,上海金融法院作出裁定,对境外债权人在香港特别行政区取得的对该债务人的胜诉判决予以认可,鉴此该境外债权人的债权有望在破产程序中获得确认。而其他破产案件中,管理人对境外投资人基于“维好协议”的债权作出不予确认的决定。由此,关于“维好协议”项下的债权人应如何主张权利、在“维好提供方”破产的情况下可否享有破产债权人地位并参与破产程序等问题众说纷纭。为此,本文将从“维好协议”的性质入手,在境内“维好提供方”破产语境下,阐述“维好协议”项下债权人可以主张权利的路径,并分析各救济途径在司法实践中的可行性。
一、“维好协议”的性质分析
(一)何谓“维好协议”