Fulltext Search

山东胜通集团股份有限公司(以下简称“胜通集团”)债券信息披露违法案是证监会2021年证监稽查20起典型违法案例之一,相关中介机构均被行政处罚,备受资本市场关注。日前,青岛市中级人民法院(下称“青岛中院”)对“胜通债”虚假陈述诉讼案作出一审判决。

本案系北京金融法院“大连机床”判例后债券虚假陈述诉讼领域的又一经典判例,一审判决诸多亮点值得点赞:(1)新《证券法》实施后全国法院首例认定债券虚假陈述造成的债券投资损失应为投资差额损失而非债券票面本息;(2)全国法院首例在债券虚假陈述案件中剔除系统风险和非系统风险所致债券投资损失;(3)充分考察债券价格、交易量变化,突破性地认定发行人“澄清公告”发布日为揭露日;(4)创新性地认定案涉债券市场并非有效市场,应以破产清偿金额来确定债券基准价。

该案判决对债券虚假陈述投资损失的认定,标志着我国债券虚假陈述损失的司法认定思路已开始理性回归“损害填平”的侵权责任本质。此外,该案判决对债券虚假陈述揭露日和基准价方面的认定,进一步丰富了人民法院审理债券虚假陈述专业性问题的实践,积累了宝贵经验,具有相当的前沿性和示范性。

In bankruptcy as in federal jurisprudence generally, to characterize something with the near-epithet of “federal common law” virtually dooms it to rejection.

In January 2020 we reported that, after the reconsideration suggested by two Supreme Court justices and revisions to account for the Supreme Court’s Merit Management decision,[1] the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stood by its origina

It seems to be a common misunderstanding, even among lawyers who are not bankruptcy lawyers, that litigation in federal bankruptcy court consists largely or even exclusively of disputes about the avoidance of transactions as preferential or fraudulent, the allowance of claims and the confirmation of plans of reorganization. However, with a jurisdictional reach that encompasses “all civil proceedings . . .

I don’t know if Congress foresaw, when it enacted new Subchapter V of Chapter 11 of the Code[1] in the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (“SBRA”), that debtors in pending cases would seek to convert or redesignate their cases as Subchapter V cases when SBRA became effective on February 19, 2020, but it was foreseeable.

Our February 26 post [1] reported on the first case dealing with the question whether a debtor in a pending Chapter 11 case may redesignate it as a case under Subchapter V, [2] the new subchapter of Chapter 11 adopted by the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (“SBRA”), which became effective on February 19.

Our February 26 post entitled “SBRA Springs to Life”[1] reported on the first case known to me that dealt with the issue whether a debtor in a pending Chapter 11 case should be permitted to amend its petition to designate it as a case under Subchapter V,[2] the new subchapter of Chapter 11 adopted by

State governments can be creditors of individuals, businesses and institutions that are debtors in bankruptcy in a variety of ways, most notably as tax and fine collectors but also as lenders. They can also be debtors of debtors, in their role, for example, as the purchasers of vast quantities of goods and services on credit. And they can also be transferees of a debtor’s property in (at least) every role in which they can be creditors.

We have noodled on the impact that the Supreme Court’s decision in Merit Management Group, LP v.

Whether because of, or in spite of, the proliferating case law it is hard to say, but the issues in, underlying and surrounding third-party releases in Chapter 11 plans just continue to arise with incessant regularity, albeit without a marked increase in clarity. We have posted about those issues here six times in little more than two years,[1] and it is fair to assume that this post will not be the last.