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.
近年市场竞争及经营环境不确定性持续增加的情况下，不少企业有可能面临营运及财务困难，导致债务违约的情况有上升的趋势。如果债务人资不抵债，债权人有权利用破产清盘的程序接管债务人的资产并尽量实现回收最大化。根据香港破产管理署公布的统计数字，在2019年1月至10月期间，强制公司清盘案及破产案呈请的数字达到7,062宗。我们藉此介绍近期香港法院就破产清盘颁发的两个重要判决。
1. 仲裁协议的存在是否会影响破产清盘程序的开展？
香港上诉法院近期在But Ka Chon v Interactive Brokers LLC [2019] HKCA 873一案中，考虑了债权相关的合同中约定有仲裁条款管辖的情况下，债权人利用法院破产清盘程序的权利会否受限。由于很多的商业协议均载有仲裁条款，法院的判决对债权人的权利及可采取的救济手段有重要意义。
在该案中，上诉人（证券公司客户，即债务人）与被上诉人（证券公司，即债权人）签订的客户协议约定双方之间的争议以仲裁解决。由于上诉人没有偿还保证金账户的欠款，债权人在香港法院申请上诉人破产。上诉人以双方已经约定仲裁为其中一个理由，请求上诉法院撤销债权人发出的法定偿债书。
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.
In the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (“2005 Act”), Congress amended the Bankruptcy Code and Title 28 of the U.S.
A bankruptcy trustee exercising her or his avoidance powers under Chapter 5 of the Bankruptcy Code may seek to recover the avoidably transferred property (or its value) from “the initial transferee,” “the entity for whose benefit such transfer was made” and “any immediate or mediate transferee of such initial transferee.”[1] Despite the authorization to seek recovery from multiple sources, “[t]he trustee is entitled to only a sin
Our May 22 post reported on the Supreme Court’s May 20 decision in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v.
It always amazes me when, after more than a half-century of Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”) jurisprudence, an issue one thinks would arise quite commonly appears never to have been decided in a reported case. Such an issue was recently decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in an adversary proceeding in the Pettit Oil Co. Chapter 7 case.[1]
Can another vain attempt to mitigate a $1.5 billion mistake provide the occasion for a thorough review of the doctrine of earmarking? It did for Southern District Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn in the long tail on the General Motors bankruptcy case.