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.
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).
国有企业重组是指通过收购、划转、合并、分立、资产剥离、混改（包括科改）等方式，对国有企业进行重新组织，以实现资源优化配置、企业整体竞争力提升的效果。其中，公司分立是一种常见的重组模式，多适用于分拆上市、解决同业竞争、突出主营业务等场景。笔者结合近期项目经验，就国有企业以分立方式实施重组所涉及的相关法律问题进行探讨。
一、公司分立的基本流程及国企分立特别程序
根据《关于做好公司合并分立登记支持企业兼并重组的意见》（工商企字〔2011〕226号）第二条[1]，公司分立是一个公司分成两个或两个以上的公司，包括存续分立和新设分立两种形式。存续分立是一个公司分立成两个以上公司，本公司继续存续，同时设立一个及以上新的公司。新设分立是一个公司分立为两个及以上新的公司，本公司解散。无论采用哪种形式的分立，公司分立前的债务均由分立后的公司承担连带责任。公司分立的常规流程包括制定分立方案、通过分立决议、编制资产负债表和财产清单、签订分立协议、公告及通知债权人及办理公司分立登记。将于2024年7月1日施行的新修订《公司法》增加了“国家企业信用信息公示系统”作为公告的平台（不再仅限于登报公告），其余关于分立的规定并无实质性变化。
在我国商事实践中，由于清算相关主体未必能严格履行清算义务，以及解散清算制度本身的不完备性等原因，导致存在大量公司自行解散清算并注销，却仍遗留部分债务未处理的情况。此时债务人的公司法人人格已经终止，不再是民事责任承担主体，债权人只能选择其他主体主张权利，这无疑增加了债权追偿的难度，在司法实践中引发了大量争议。
2024年7月1日，新《公司法》即将实施，新法一方面对现行的解散清算制度进行了优化，明确了以董事为主的清算主体责任；另一方面则强化了股东的出资责任，特别规定股东的最长认缴出资期限为五年，且要求存量公司逐步调整至该期限内，这预计将引发大量未实缴出资的公司通过解散清算程序进行注销，从而带来更多公司注销后遗留债务的追偿难题。基于这种新形势，笔者根据近年来代理不良债权追偿项目的经验，梳理并归纳了对遗留债务的追偿路径，以期为面临类似情况的债权人提供参考和借鉴。
一、《公司法》修订与遗留债务的追偿现状