To encourage vendors and other creditors to continue doing business with financially distressed entities, the Bankruptcy Code includes various defenses to litigation brought by a bankruptcy trustee or chapter 11 debtor-in-possession ("DIP") seeking to avoid pre-bankruptcy payments to such entities. One of these defenses shields from avoidance transfers made to pay debts incurred in the ordinary course of business of the debtor and the transferee.

Mitigating risk of loss associated with a bankruptcy filing should be an element of any commercial transaction, especially if it involves a sale or license of intellectual property rights. A ruling recently handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit provides a stark reminder of the consequences of when it is not. In In re Mallinckrodt PLC, 99 F.4th 617 (3d Cir.

Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code's "safe harbor" preventing avoidance in bankruptcy of certain securities, commodity, or forward-contract payments has long been a magnet for controversy. Several noteworthy court rulings have been issued in bankruptcy cases addressing the scope of the provision, including its limitation to transactions involving "financial institutions" as transferors or transferees, its preemption of avoidance litigation that could have been commenced by or on behalf of creditors under applicable non-bankruptcy law, and its application to non-public transactions.

A bedrock principle underlying chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code is that creditors, shareholders, and other stakeholders should be provided with adequate information to make an informed decision to either accept or reject a chapter 11 plan. For this reason, the Bankruptcy Code provides that any "solicitation" of votes for or against a plan must be preceded or accompanied by stakeholders' receipt of a "disclosure statement" approved by the bankruptcy court explaining the background of the case as well as the key provisions of the chapter 11 plan.

The U.S. Supreme Court handed down three bankruptcy rulings to finish the Term ended in July 2024. The decisions address the validity of nonconsensual third-party releases in chapter 11 plans, the standing of insurance companies to object to "insurance neutral" chapter 11 plans, and the remedy for overpayment of administrative fees in chapter 11 cases to the Office of the U.S. Trustee. We discuss each of them below.

U.S. Supreme Court Bars Nonconsensual Third-Party Releases in Chapter 11 Plans

Courts disagree over whether a foreign bankruptcy case can be recognized under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code if the foreign debtor does not reside or have assets or a place of business in the United States. In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit staked out its position on this issue in Drawbridge Special Opportunities Fund LP v. Barnet (In re Barnet), 737 F.3d 238 (2d Cir. 2013), ruling that the provision of the Bankruptcy Code requiring U.S. residency, assets, or a place of business applies in chapter 15 cases as well as cases filed under other chapters.

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：

Le 27 juin 2024, la Cour suprême des États-Unis a publié une décision très attendue qu’elle a rendue dans l’affaire William K. Harrington, United States Trustee, Region 2, Petitioner v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al. (l’« affaire Purdue »).

On June 27, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States released its highly anticipated decision in William K. Harrington, United States Trustee, Region 2, Petitioner v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al. (Purdue). At issue was whether the U.S. bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to confirm a plan that provided for releases in favour of non-debtor parties, including parties providing a significant monetary contribution in support of the plan itself.

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。