Fulltext Search

A bedrock principle underlying chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code is that creditors, shareholders, and other stakeholders should be provided with adequate information to make an informed decision to either accept or reject a chapter 11 plan. For this reason, the Bankruptcy Code provides that any "solicitation" of votes for or against a plan must be preceded or accompanied by stakeholders' receipt of a "disclosure statement" approved by the bankruptcy court explaining the background of the case as well as the key provisions of the chapter 11 plan.

一、问题的提出

债务人向债权人借款,由保证人提供保证担保。借款到期后,债务人与保证人均未偿还该笔借款。后法院裁定受理保证人的破产申请,债权人因此向保证人的管理人申报债权,要求保证人就债务人所欠借款及利息承担保证责任。管理人审查并确认了该笔债权。(简见以下表1案型法律关系表)根据《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国民法典〉有关担保制度的解释》(下称“《民法典担保制度解释》”)第22条之规定,[1]保证债权应当自保证人的破产申请受理时起停止计息。与债务人破产时保证债权随同主债权停止计息不同的是,保证人破产导致保证债权停止计息,却不能反向及于主债权也停止计息。其后债务人向债权人清偿了部分债务。此时,管理人将面临如下难题:在主债权未停止计息的情况下,债权人获得债务人部分清偿后,在保证人的破产程序中,管理人先前认定的债权数额是否须要调整?如果须要调整,应该如何进行调整?鉴于该问题在实务中相对较为前沿,笔者曾多次尝试检索与之相关的法规、判例、理论文献、实务文章等,对于解决该问题的资料寥寥无几。虽无前人的解决方案可供参照,但该问题仍然亟待解决。在缺乏相应法律规范的情况下,下文将通过民法基础理论的推演,尝试为解决这一问题提供思路。

On 31 October 2023, Federal Law No. 51 of 2023 Promulgating the Financial and Bankruptcy Law (the Bankruptcy Law) was published in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) Official Gazette, repealing the prior federal law on bankruptcy (Federal Law No. 9 of 2016, the Prior Law) and significantly developing the bankruptcy regime in the UAE.

In Short

The Situation: The U.S. Supreme Court considered whether § 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code, which limits a party's ability to undo an asset transfer made to a good-faith purchaser in a bankruptcy case, is jurisdictional.

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. However, the Bankruptcy Code establishes strict requirements for the assumption or assignment of contracts and leases.

On April 19, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal of a landmark 2019 decision issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit regarding the applicability of the Bankruptcy Code's safe harbor for certain securities, commodity, or forward contract payments to prevent the avoidance in bankruptcy of $8.3 billion in payments made to the shareholders of Tribune Co. as part of its 2007 leveraged buyout ("LBO").

On October 26, 2020, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas issued a long-awaited ruling on whether natural gas exploration and production company Ultra Petroleum Corp. ("UPC") must pay a make-whole premium to noteholders under its confirmed chapter 11 plan and whether the noteholders are entitled to postpetition interest on their claims pursuant to the "solvent-debtor exception." On remand from the U.S.

In the latest chapter of more than a decade of contentious litigation surrounding the 2007 leveraged buyout ("LBO") and ensuing bankruptcy of media conglomerate Tribune Co. ("Tribune"), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed lower court rulings that Tribune's 2012 chapter 11 plan did not unfairly discriminate against senior noteholders who contended that their distributions were reduced because the plan improperly failed to strictly enforce pre-bankruptcy subordination agreements. In In re Tribune Co., 972 F.3d 228 (3d Cir.