Introduction

Introduction - はじめに

2016年破産倒産法は、清算時における債権者の債務弁済を実現する仕組みを提供します。また、有担保債権者は優先的な債権回収が可能です。しかしながら、State Tax Officer v. Rainbow Papers Ltd.（Rainbow Papers Judgement）において、これを覆す判決が下されました。2003 年の Gujarat Value Added Tax Act（GVAT法）に基づいて発生する税金の請求について、政府に有利に設定された「担保権」により、税務当局は法の下の「有担保債権者」である、と判示したのです。再建計画が政府への法定納付金を除外している場合、法規定に準拠しているとは言えず、政府に対する拘束力は持たない、としました。

当該最高裁判所の判決は、破産倒産法の下の法定公課決済の優先順位という側面において、大きな懸念を抱かせるものとなりました。今回の記事では、当該判決が、破産倒産法の本来の目的およびその他の各種判例とどのように対照的であるかについて考察し、解説しています。

Brief facts - 概要

Introduction

Introduction

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) was enacted to consolidate and amend the laws relating to reorganization and insolvency resolution of corporate persons.

“[C]ourts may account for hypothetical preference actions within a hypothetical [C]hapter 7 liquidation” to hold a defendant bank (“Bank”) liable for a payment it received within 90 days of a debtor’s bankruptcy, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on March 7, 2017.In re Tenderloin Health, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4008, *4 (9th Cir. March 7, 2017).

The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Bankruptcy Rules”) require each corporate party in an adversary proceeding (i.e., a bankruptcy court suit) to file a statement identifying the holders of “10% or more” of the party’s equity interests. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7007.1(a). Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn, relying on another local Bankruptcy Rule (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. R.

A Chapter 11 debtor “cannot nullify a preexisting obligation in a loan agreement to pay post-default interest solely by proposing a cure,” held a split panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Nov. 4, 2016. In re New Investments Inc., 2016 WL 6543520, *3 (9th Cir. Nov. 4, 2016) (2-1).

While a recent federal bankruptcy court ruling provides some clarity as to how midstream gathering agreements may be treated in Chapter 11 cases involving oil and gas exploration and production companies (“E&Ps”), there are still many questions that remain. This Alert analyzes and answers 10 important questions raised by the In re Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation decision of March 8, 2016.[1]

An asset purchaser’s payments into segregated accounts for the benefit of general unsecured creditors and professionals employed by the debtor (i.e., the seller) and its creditors’ committee, made in connection with the purchase of all of the debtor’s assets, are not property of the debtor’s estate or available for distribution to creditors according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit — even when some of the segregated accounts were listed as consideration in the governing asset purchase agreement. ICL Holding Company, Inc., et al. v.