What is the so-called "creditor duty"?
This is the duty, introduced into English common law by the leading case of West Mercia Safetywear v Dodd1 in 1988, of company directors to consider, or act in accordance with, the interests of the company's creditors when the company becomes insolvent, or when it approaches, or is at real risk of insolvency.
Background
On 22 July 2022, the English High Court sanctioned Houst Limited’s (“Houst” or the “Company”) restructuring plan (the “Restructuring Plan”), which significantly, is the first time a Restructuring Plan has been used to cram down HM Revenue & Customs (“HMRC”) as preferential creditor.1
Background
On 12 January 2022, the English High Court granted Smile Telecoms Holdings Limited’s (“Smile” or the “Company”) application to convene a single meeting of plan creditors (the super senior creditors) to vote on the Company’s proposed restructuring plan (the “Restructuring Plan”). It is the first plan to use section 901C(4) of the Companies Act 2006 (“CA 2006”) to exclude other classes of creditors and shareholders from voting on the Restructuring Plan on the basis that they have no genuine economic interest in the Company.
Background
On the 19th of August 2021, the English High Court sanctioned a Part 26A restructuring plan proposed by the administrators of Amicus Finance plc (in administration) (“Amicus”) for the company’s solvent exit from administration, enabling the company to be rescued as a going concern (the “Restructuring Plan”).
On 29 September 2021, the English High Court rejected a challenge in respect of Caff Nero's company voluntary arrangement ("CVA"), brought by a landlord on the grounds of material irregularity and unfair prejudice. The single disgruntled landlord, with the backing of the EG Group ("EG") (who were interested in acquiring Caff Nero), argued that the directors of the company and the CVA nominees breached their respective duties in refusing to adjourn or postpone the electronic voting process to vote on the CVA, after EG had submitted an eleventh-hour offer for Caff Nero.
Key Takeaways
Key Takeaways
对于《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国民法典〉有关担保制度的解释》(下称“《民法典担保解释》”或“新规”)对金融资管业务的影响,我们在上篇及中篇中从担保物权受托持有、增信文件性质、上市公司对外担保、担保物权登记、抵押预告登记等角度进行了详细探析。本篇我们将从资产收益权回购交易、仲裁与申请实现担保物权程序、担保与破产衔接角度,着重介绍新规的修订及对金融资管业务的影响。择重点概括如下:
一、新规明确特定资产或资产收益权转让及回购交易中让与担保规则的处理方法
合伙型基金退出时,合伙人之间可能因存在争议而无法自行组建清算组或虽然组成清算组却无法顺利完成清算。这便引发合伙型基金可否通过法院程序进行司法清算的问题。我们曾代理过一起非常罕见的合伙型基金司法清算的案件,开创上海市指定第三人担任基金清算组负责人的先例,案件在其他诸多方面都在上海地区乃至全国具有领先地位和创新意义。
所谓司法清算,亦即强制清算,是相对于企业自行清算而言,一般是指法院介入合伙型基金清算程序的制度,可以是法院组建清算组,也可能是法院监督清算程序,亦或当清算出现障碍时请求法院排除妨碍等。针对公司的强制清算,最高人民法院出台了《最高人民法院关于适用中华人民共和国公司法>若干问题的规定(二)》(以下简称“《公司法司法解释(二)》”)及《关于审理公司强制清算案件工作座谈会纪要》(以下简称“《公司强清纪要》”)。但有关合伙型基金的清算尚无较为全面和细致的立法体系,因此,合伙型基金通过司法方式进行强制清算的先例很少,且争议颇多。