Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.
The Singapore International Commercial Court (the "SICC"), a division of the General Division of the High Court and part of the Supreme Court of Singapore, was established in 2015 as a trusted neutral forum to meet increasing demand for effective transnational dispute resolution. It recently considered, as a matter of first impression for the SICC, whether to approve a prepackaged scheme of arrangement for a group of Vietnam-based real estate investment companies under Singapore's recently enacted Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (the "IRDA").
As the enactment of chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code approaches its 20-year anniversary, U.S. bankruptcy courts are still grappling with some unresolved issues concerning how its provisions should be applied to best harmonize cross-border bankruptcy cases. One of those issues was the subject of a bench ruling handed down by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.
The U.S. Supreme Court handed down three bankruptcy rulings to finish the Term ended in July 2024. The decisions address the validity of nonconsensual third-party releases in chapter 11 plans, the standing of insurance companies to object to "insurance neutral" chapter 11 plans, and the remedy for overpayment of administrative fees in chapter 11 cases to the Office of the U.S. Trustee. We discuss each of them below.
U.S. Supreme Court Bars Nonconsensual Third-Party Releases in Chapter 11 Plans
Courts disagree over whether a foreign bankruptcy case can be recognized under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code if the foreign debtor does not reside or have assets or a place of business in the United States. In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit staked out its position on this issue in Drawbridge Special Opportunities Fund LP v. Barnet (In re Barnet), 737 F.3d 238 (2d Cir. 2013), ruling that the provision of the Bankruptcy Code requiring U.S. residency, assets, or a place of business applies in chapter 15 cases as well as cases filed under other chapters.
浅析新形势下上市公司并购重组方向与路径——以上市公司在子公司融资后实施并购重组之案例为视角
引言
2024年3月15日，中国证券监督管理委员会（以下简称“证监会”）发布《关于加强上市公司监管的意见（试行）》，明确“支持上市公司通过并购重组提升投资价值”，鼓励“上市公司综合运用各类工具提升对长期投资的吸引力，积极吸引长期机构投资者”，并提出“多措并举活跃并购重组市场，鼓励上市公司综合运用股份、现金、定向可转债等工具实施并购重组、注入优质资产”。
2024年4月12日，国务院发布《关于加强监管防范风险推动资本市场高质量发展的若干意见》，原则性提出“严把发行上市准入关”“严格上市公司持续监管”“大力推动中长期资金入市，持续壮大长期投资力量”等指导意见，进一步提高IPO标准，严格再融资审核把关，鼓励上市公司聚焦主业，综合运用并购重组、股权激励等方式提高发展质量，倡导长期资金入市，鼓励长期资金投资。
The Bankruptcy Code bars certain individuals or entities from filing for bankruptcy protection, generally because they do not reside or have a place of business or property in the United States, fail to satisfy certain debt thresholds, or are business entities, such as banks and insurance companies, subject to non-bankruptcy rules or regulations governing their rehabilitation or liquidation.
Determining a foreign debtor's "center of main interests" ("COMI") for purposes of recognizing a foreign bankruptcy proceeding in the United States under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code can be problematic in cases involving multiple debtors that are members of an enterprise group doing business in several different countries. The U.S.
On January 23, 2024, the Court of Appeal in England and Wales (the "Appeal Court") upheld a challenge launched by dissenting creditors to overturn the UK Restructuring Plan (the "RP") of the Adler Group previously approved by the High Court under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (Strategic Value Capital Solutions Master Fund LP and others v AGPS BondCo PLC [2024] EWCA Civ 24).
Court approval of a sale process in receivership or Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) proposal proceedings is generally a procedural order and objectors do not have an appeal as of right; they must seek leave and meet a high test in order obtain it. However, in Peakhill Capital Inc. v.