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).

随着社会发展与商业模式的不断丰富，不同商事主体之间会因愈发复杂的交易往来产生繁多的债权债务关系，整体经济环境下行、转入逆周期的情况下，债务危机频频爆发，债务重组已成为债务危机化解的一种重要方式，而债务重组能否成功的关键因素取决于是否存在契合企业、债权人、投资人甚至政府或监管机关要求的重组方案，故债务重组方案的设计是债务重组的重中之重。本文结合相关项目经验，对债务重组方案设计的总体思路及流程，以及中介机构在重组方案设计时的角色作用提出探讨，以期更好地促进债务重组工作之推进。

一、重组范围

In Short

2018年以来，选择以庭外重组方式化解债务风险的大型民营企业逐渐变多，同时在实践中，为了固化庭外债务重组协议之效力，越来越多企业根据自身需要，寻求以庭外重组与庭内重组相结合的、综合性化解债务危机的路径。在这样的现实背景下，对庭外债务重组与庭内重组程序的衔接及组合运用进行研究便显得十分必要了。本文将结合我国相关政策规定和案例实践，探讨庭外债务重组与庭内重组程序衔接的合理性、可行性以及两者进行衔接的模式。

一、庭外重组与庭内重组程序的现实需求

庭外重组与庭内重组（包括破产重整和破产和解）均为化解债务风险的路径。庭内重组通过破产法规定及司法权力介入等形式，赋予了重整计划或和解协议“多数决”的强制约束力，以及解封解押等的强制执行力。但庭外重组实质是债务人与主要债权人私下自愿协商，或者在中立第三人主持下达成债务调整合意的过程，达成的合意不具有司法强制执行力。