Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.
一、问题的提出
债务人向债权人借款，由保证人提供保证担保。借款到期后，债务人与保证人均未偿还该笔借款。后法院裁定受理保证人的破产申请，债权人因此向保证人的管理人申报债权，要求保证人就债务人所欠借款及利息承担保证责任。管理人审查并确认了该笔债权。（简见以下表1案型法律关系表）根据《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“《民法典担保制度解释》”）第22条之规定，[1]保证债权应当自保证人的破产申请受理时起停止计息。与债务人破产时保证债权随同主债权停止计息不同的是，保证人破产导致保证债权停止计息，却不能反向及于主债权也停止计息。其后债务人向债权人清偿了部分债务。此时，管理人将面临如下难题：在主债权未停止计息的情况下，债权人获得债务人部分清偿后，在保证人的破产程序中，管理人先前认定的债权数额是否须要调整？如果须要调整，应该如何进行调整？鉴于该问题在实务中相对较为前沿，笔者曾多次尝试检索与之相关的法规、判例、理论文献、实务文章等，对于解决该问题的资料寥寥无几。虽无前人的解决方案可供参照，但该问题仍然亟待解决。在缺乏相应法律规范的情况下，下文将通过民法基础理论的推演，尝试为解决这一问题提供思路。
Court approval of a sale process in receivership or Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) proposal proceedings is generally a procedural order and objectors do not have an appeal as of right; they must seek leave and meet a high test in order obtain it. However, in Peakhill Capital Inc. v.
The economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic will leave in its wake a significant increase in commercial chapter 11 filings. Many of these cases will feature extensive litigation involving breach of contract claims, business interruption insurance disputes, and common law causes of action based on novel interpretations of long-standing legal doctrines such as force majeure.
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali recently ruled in the Chapter 11 case of Pacific Gas & Electric (“PG&E”) that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) has no jurisdiction to interfere with the ability of a bankrupt power utility company to reject power purchase agreements (“PPAs”).
The Supreme Court this week resolved a long-standing open issue regarding the treatment of trademark license rights in bankruptcy proceedings. The Court ruled in favor of Mission Products, a licensee under a trademark license agreement that had been rejected in the chapter 11 case of Tempnology, the debtor-licensor, determining that the rejection constituted a breach of the agreement but did not rescind it.
Few issues in bankruptcy create as much contention as disputes regarding the right of setoff. This was recently highlighted by a decision in the chapter 11 case of Orexigen Therapeutics in the District of Delaware.
The judicial power of the United States is vested in courts created under Article III of the Constitution. However, Congress created the current bankruptcy court system over 40 years ago pursuant to Article I of the Constitution rather than under Article III.
Southeastern Grocers (operator of the Winn-Dixie, Bi Lo and Harvey’s supermarket chains) recently completed a successful restructuring of its balance sheet through a “prepackaged” chapter 11 case in the District of Delaware. As part of the deal with the holders of its unsecured bonds, the company agreed that under the plan of reorganization it would pay in cash the fees and expenses of the trustee for the indenture under which the unsecured bonds were issued.
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc. has appropriately drawn significant attention.