In a recent ruling (NMC Health PLC (in Administration) v Ernst & Young LLP [2024] EWHC 2905 (Comm)), the High Court declined to order disclosure of witness statements and transcripts of interviews conducted by administrators during their initial investigations, citing litigation privilege.

Litigation privilege

In March 2015 the major high street retailer British Home Stores (BHS) was acquired for £1 by Retail Acquisitions Limited (RAL), a company owned by Mr Dominic Chappell. Mr Chappell became a director of the BHS entities upon completion of the purchase, together with three other individuals.

What happens to a company at the end of an administration is a question that probably only keeps insolvency anoraks up at night.

There are a limited number of potential options, with the rescue of the company as a going concern being the number one objective to which all administrators aspire. However, more often than not, an administration will end with the company entering liquidation or, where the company has no property to permit a distribution to creditors, the dissolution of the company.

While franchising has typically been a more robust business model than others, it remains susceptible to broader economic and sectoral pressures, as The Body Shop’s recent entry into administration demonstrates.

In the unfortunate event that a franchisor or franchisee becomes insolvent, disruption is inevitable. However, insolvency doesn’t necessarily spell a terminal outcome. In this article we consider some of the key considerations for both franchisors and franchisees.

Handling franchisee insolvency: the franchisor’s approach

The High Court has handed down an important decision confirming that an unrecognised foreign judgment can be used to form the basis of a bankruptcy petition.

In rejecting the bankrupt’s appeal, the court confirmed that a debt arising pursuant to such a judgment is capable of constituting a “debt” for the purposes of section 267 Insolvency Act 1986 (the Act), despite the fact that the underlying judgment had not been the subject of recognition proceedings in England.

Facts

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

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。

We find ourselves in a year of transition, with (whisper it) the economy stabilising and an election tipped for the second half of 2024. Surely only a fool, in times such as these, would seek to anticipate what change could unfold in the legal landscape over the next 12 months. Challenge accepted! For 2024 we have dusted off our crystal ball and we set out below our (educated) guesses of what to expect for the year (or two) ahead…

Implementation of UNCITRAL model law on Enterprise Group Insolvency

“金融机构债权人委员会”（简称“金融债委会”）是协商性、自律性、临时性组织，按照市场化、法治化、公平公正、分类施策的原则，依法维护金融机构作为债权人的合法权益。金融债委会可以按照“一企一策”的方针，集体研究增加融资、稳定融资、减少融资、重组等措施，确保债权金融机构形成合力，稳妥化解风险。

在我国经济处于下行期的大环境之下，各地大型民营企业频繁陷入债务危机，越来越多困境企业在庭外债务重组中使用金融债委会机制作为企业和债权人之间沟通的“黏合剂”、债务危机化解的“催化剂”以及与庭内司法重整或和解程序衔接的“融合剂”，由金融债委会主导庭外债务重组程序有效推进，如东旭集团等。本文意在对当前金融债委会机制的制度背景、发展现状、实践中的运行机制、存在的问题及解决方案等方面进行深入分析。

一、金融债委会国内外发展概况及制度优势

（一）国内外金融债委会制度发展概况

1、国外金融债委会制度发展概况

庭外债务重组，是指对陷入债务困境的债务人在避免完全的司法干预情形下，依靠企业自身与债权人、投资人进行谈判，最大限度地减少成本，改变其资产和债务构成或结构的一种债权债务整体调整活动，这种调整活动着眼于企业整体性系统调整，包括对债务人的业务重组、资产重组、管理重组、债务重组等。其中，业务重组主要围绕主业经营，不断提升巩固核心竞争力，进一步挖掘主业业务资产价值；资产重组主要聚焦企业主营业务，对非主业资产实施瘦身，最大限度实现企业资产重组价值的释放；管理重组主要优化企业治理结构，调整决策和监督职权范围，实现各方对资产处置和经营发展的共同管控，缓释信任风险；债务重组主要在管理重组、资产重组、业务重组的基础上，可以充分运用延期、降息、以物抵债、以股抵债等债务重组工具，实现企业整体债务风险化解。