Fulltext Search

As practitioners we pour over notices of intention to appoint (NOIA) and notices of appointment of administrators (NOA) to make sure every detail is accurate. Why? Because no one wants to risk an invalid appointment because there was a minor mistake or error that was overlooked. Understandably errors occur, particularly when the appointment of administrators often happens at speed, with all parties inevitably juggling many balls. Prescribed information may have been missed, or incorrectly stated and procedural steps may have been inadvertently forgotten.

The bankruptcy court presiding over the FTX Trading bankruptcy last month issued a memorandum opinion addressing valuation of cryptocurrency-based claims and how to “calculate a reasonable discount to be applied to the Petition Date market price” for certain cryptocurrency tokens.

重组上市交易(或称借壳上市)通常指收购方(或称借壳方)在取得上市公司控制权的同时或一定期间内,实施重大资产重组将外部资产注入上市公司,以使得上市公司主营业务、资产或收入发生根本变化,实现上市公司业务发展方向的转变,实现借壳方资产证券化的一种交易形式。上市公司作为交易主体参与此类交易,且该类交易的实施流程及审核流程与其他类型的上市公司控制权交易差别较大,本篇作为上市公司控制权收购专题系列文章的最后一篇,拟专题介绍A股重组上市的市场情况、交易架构,并进一步分析此类交易中的重点关注问题。

一、重组上市市场动态

经统计2011年至2024年6月30日期间成功完成的重组上市项目,各年度项目数量变化趋势、各板块占比及民营企业与国资企业占比情况如下:

For those that are that way inclined (which includes us at #SPBRestructuring!), the 500 plus page Wright v Chappell judgment which sets out the BHS wrongful trading claim against its former directors makes for an interesting read. It paints a colourful picture of the downfall of the BHS group, from the point that it was sold for £1 to its eventual demise into administration and then liquidation. You can make your own mind up about the characters involved, but the story is a sorry one, with creditors ultimately suffering the most.

File your proof of claim before the bar date. That’s a principle every creditor in a bankruptcy case should adhere by. But on June 7, 2024, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York may have increased the degree of diligence parties need to conduct to determine whether they are a potential creditor in a case and therefore required to file a proof of claim.

引言

在新《公司法》实施的第一天,即2024年7月1日,北京市西城区人民法院微信公众号发布了其审结的首例适用新《公司法》第54条规定的加速到期规则的案件。

在该案中,经债权人申请,西城法院在执行程序中追加案涉公司的股东张某为被执行人。进而,西城法院根据新《公司法》第54条,对案涉公司股东张某适用加速到期规则,判决其履行提前缴纳出资的债务,在其未出资的范围内向债权人承担补充赔偿责任。

一、西城法院案例简析[1]

(一)案情概要

李某系案涉公司的前员工。因该公司拖欠工资,李某提起劳动仲裁。经仲裁委调解,双方达成调解协议,约定:公司应于2023年4月底前支付拖欠李某的工资70,000余元。随后,仲裁委据此出具了《调解书》。

因该公司未履行《调解书》项下的付款义务,李某以该公司为被执行人向西城法院提出强制执行申请。由于该公司名下没有可供执行的财产,西城法院裁定终结本次执行程序。

On June 27, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that a bankruptcy court does not have the statutory authority to discharge creditors’ claims against a non-debtor without the creditors’ consent (except in asbestos cases). The decision in Harrington v.

In Harrington v. Purdue Pharma LP, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the Bankruptcy Code does not authorize bankruptcy courts to confirm a Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan that discharges creditors’ claims against third parties without the consent of the affected claimants. The decision rejects the bankruptcy plan of Purdue Pharma, which had released members of the Sackler family from liability for their role in the opioid crisis. Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority decision. Justice Kavanaugh dissented, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kagan and Sotomayor.

In the recent decision of Re PBS Building (Qld) Pty Ltd [2024] QSC 108, the Supreme Court of Queensland considered for the first time the operation of the State’s new project and retention trust account regime in the context of an insolvency. The decision provides useful guidance to insolvency practitioners and subcontractors as to their rights in relation to trust accounts established by an insolvent head contractor.