The High Court has considered whether trustees in bankruptcy are in breach of sanctions by allowing sanctioned Russian creditors to participate in UK insolvency proceedings.
Background
A Russian national, resident in London is subject to bankruptcy proceedings both in Russia and the UK. The bankrupt's creditors include four Russian banks in liquidation in Russia. The UK trustees in bankruptcy applied to the court for directions concerning three main questions:
The liquidator of UKCloud Ltd (the Company) applied to the court for directions as to whether a debenture granted by the Company created a fixed or floating charge over certain internet protocol (IP) addresses. The lender argued that it had a fixed charge.
Fixed or floating?
Background
The administrators of Toogood International Transport and Agricultural Services Ltd (in administration) issued an application seeking an extension of the administration. Their application also asked the court whether consent to a previous administration extension should have been obtained from a secured creditor which had been paid in full before the extension process.
Once a creditor, always a creditor?
The High Court considered whether a limitation period could prevent the presentation of a winding up petition based on a Lebanese judgment debt which was not registered as an English judgment.
Background
The creditor presented a winding up petition based on a judgment debt of $776,907.51 obtained in a Lebanese court in 2010. The debtor applied to restrain presentation of the petition on grounds that the judgment had not been registered nor recognised by the English Courts and the claim was time-barred.
Recognition
The English High Court has considered, on appeal, whether a foreign judgment constitutes a "debt" for the purposes of a bankruptcy petition.
Background
A bankruptcy petition served by Servis-Terminal LLC (ST) was based on a Russian court judgment obtained against Drelle, a former director of ST. The judgment had been upheld following appeals to superior courts in Russia.
There was no evidence that Drelle would be able to pay the judgment debt which was considerably more than the bankruptcy threshold.
Appeal
The High court has recently considered whether permission should be given retrospectively to lift an administration moratorium to allow a counterclaim to proceed.
Background
The counterclaim had been brought by WWTAI against CargoLogicAir Ltd (in administration) (CLA) without the consent of the administrators or the Court. CLA contended that the counterclaim was issued in breach of the statutory administration moratorium and should be struck out.
Solely to set off
近年来,我国公开市场债券违约处置体制不断健全,违约处置方式不断丰富,违约处置的市场化程度进一步提升,债务重组作为一种公开市场债务处理的方式逐渐出现在人们的视野中。与此同时,受经济下行大环境的影响,债券市场违约事件频发,截至2023年一季度,公开市场多笔债券出现未按时兑付本息、回售款或利息,构成实质违约。为了寻求公开市场违约债券处置效率的进一步提升,健全公开市场债券信息披露制度,探索最优方式化解债券违约的路径,针对公开市场债券的特点,对处理手段及相应注意事项进行研究十分必要。本文将结合我国目前公开市场违约债券的处置现状和应对方式,从庭外重组与庭内重组程序的差异性出发,论述庭外债务重组作为处置手段的特殊性及应当重点注意的事项等,明确以庭外债务重组手段处置公开市场债务将会进一步提升债券违约处置机制市场化、法治化水平。
一、我国公开市场违约债券处置现状
2021年,我国债券市场新增23家违约发行人,共涉及到期违约债券87期,到期违约金额合计约1015.76亿元;17家发行人首次发生展期,涉及展期债券33期,展期规模157.31亿元,较上年增多。[1]
On 4 March 2024, the High Court approved the amended restructuring plan (the Plan) of Project Lietzenburger Straße Holdco S.à.r.L (the Company) a Luxembourg incorporated company part of the German Aggregate Holdings Group, despite refusing to sanction its original plan.
In 2021, the FCA published its Guidance for IPs on how to approach regulated firms. Since then, there have been changes in the legal framework affecting firm failure, changes in the regulatory framework and changes in the UK economic climate.
The FCA is consulting on amendments to reflect these changes including:
企业发生债务危机拟进行债务重组时,企业的客观情况,包括但不限于企业集团的构成、资产、负债、业务经营等等,是企业自身选定重组方向制定重组方案、政府机关判断企业有无救助价值、债权人判断重组方案是否可行、投资人研判企业有无投资价值及具体投资方向的基本依据,故全面、及时地尽职调查对危机企业极有必要。然而应当注意的是,基于债务重组为目的的尽职调查与传统的收并购、IPO、债权融资等业务所涉尽职调查在尽调的对象、内容、方法等方面存在区别,应基于尽职调查的目的有针对性地设计尽调方案,进而获取对使用人有价值的尽调结果。本文拟对债务重组场景下“尽职调查”的目的、分类、尽调的主要内容及方法、以及尽调中的注意事项进行分析论述。
一、庭外债务重组尽职调查目的概述
尽职调查的目的是指导如何设计尽调方案、采取何种尽调方法、如何进行尽调结果披露的基础。举例来说,在股权收购项目中,收购方需对目标企业进行尽职调查,其目的是了解企业是否具备投资价值、并尽可能的发现可能对投资人收益产生影响的潜在风险;在资产收购项目中,收购方需对收购标的进行尽职调查,其目的是了解资产的客观状态及法律状态,确定收购资产的客观现状、法律权属、法律瑕疵等;而在庭外债务重组中,尽职调查的主要目的是了解企业的客观现状,以便确定如何化解其债务危机问题。