IBBIによる管財人の報酬体系規定

2016年破産倒産法の下、管財人または暫定管財人（総称してRP）は、企業債務者の事業を継続企業として運営し、企業倒産解決プロセス（CIRP）を実施する責任を負います。また、RPは、CIRP が期限内に実施され、企業債務者の資産価値が最大化されるように努める必要があります。

Introduction - はじめに

企業倒産処理手続（CIRP）が進行している間、債権者と CIRP 対象企業（企業債務者）との間で、債務解消のための話し合いが行われることがよくあり ます。このような場合において、債権者は、債務者に対して行ったCIRPの開始申請（CIRP申請）を撤回することができます。本記事では、債務者が清算手続きに入った後におけるCIRP申請の取り下げについて、VS Varun v. South India Bank（VS Varun Case）における会社法審判所（NCLT）の判決を参照に、解説します。

NCLT in VS Varun Case - VS Varun CaseにおけるNCLT

Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), the resolution professional or the interim resolution professional (collectively referred as RP) is vested with the responsibility of running the business of the corporate debtor as a going concern and conducting the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP). The RP must also ensure that CIRP is conducted in a time-bound manner and the value of the assets of the corporate debtor is maximised during the process.

Introduction

The Supreme Court in Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd [2020] UKSC 31 has brought much needed clarity to the legal basis and scope of the so-called ‘reflective loss’ principle. The effect of the decision is a ‘bright line’ rule that bars claims by shareholders for loss in value of their shares arising as a consequence of the company having suffered loss, in respect of which the company has a cause of action against the same wrong-doer.

A recent decision of the High Court of New Zealand provides helpful guidance for insolvency practitioners on how aspects of the voluntary administration regime should operate in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

On 30 March 2020, the board of directors of EncoreFX (NZ) Limited resolved to appoint administrators to the company. By then, New Zealand was already at Level 4 on the four-level alert system for COVID-19.

The UK Court of Appeal has held that legal privilege outlasts the dissolution of a company in Addlesee v Dentons Europe LLP [2019] EWCA Civ 1600.

Legal advice privilege applies to communications between a client and its lawyers. The general rule is that those communications cannot be disclosed to third parties unless and until the client waives the privilege.

The High Court in DHC Assets Ltd v Arnerich [2019] NZHC 1695 recently considered an application under s 301 of the Companies Act (the Act) seeking to recover $1,088,156 against the former director of a liquidated company (Vaco). The plaintiff had a construction contract with Vaco and said it had not been paid for all the work it performed under that contract.

Regan v Brougham [2019] NZCA 401 clarifies what is needed to establish a valid guarantee.

A Term Loan Agreement was entered into whereby Christine Regan and Mark Tuffin lent $50,000 to B & R Enterprises Ltd. Rachael Dey and Bryce Brougham were named as Guarantors. Bryce Brougham was the only guarantor to sign the agreement. The Company was put into liquidation and a demand made against the Guarantor.

The guarantor argued that the guarantee was not enforceable based on the following:

The Court of Appeal in 90 Nine Limited v Luxury Rentals NZ Limited [2019] NZCA 424 allowed an appeal from a creditor in respect of an application to liquidate the respondent over a failure to pay a statutory demand.