庭外债务重组，是指对陷入债务困境的债务人在避免完全的司法干预情形下，依靠企业自身与债权人、投资人进行谈判，最大限度地减少成本，改变其资产和债务构成或结构的一种债权债务整体调整活动，这种调整活动着眼于企业整体性系统调整，包括对债务人的业务重组、资产重组、管理重组、债务重组等。其中，业务重组主要围绕主业经营，不断提升巩固核心竞争力，进一步挖掘主业业务资产价值；资产重组主要聚焦企业主营业务，对非主业资产实施瘦身，最大限度实现企业资产重组价值的释放；管理重组主要优化企业治理结构，调整决策和监督职权范围，实现各方对资产处置和经营发展的共同管控，缓释信任风险；债务重组主要在管理重组、资产重组、业务重组的基础上，可以充分运用延期、降息、以物抵债、以股抵债等债务重组工具，实现企业整体债务风险化解。
In Short
The Background: On November 15, 2023, the Temporary Fast-Track Liquidation Transparency Act (Tijdelijke Wet Transparantie Turboliquidatie) (the "Act") came into force in the Netherlands, temporarily changing certain statutory provisions in the Dutch Civil Code (Burgerlijk Wetboek), the Dutch Bankruptcy Act (Faillissementswet), and the Dutch Economic Offenses Act (Wet op de economische delicten).
A "double-dip" structure is considered a way to allow some creditors to have multiple claims against key obligors arising out of the same underlying transactions. These additional claims could improve their position relative to other creditors in a bankruptcy or liquidation.
In Short:
The Situation: After the nationalization of the Dutch SNS banking and insurance group, the Dutch Minister of Finance offered zero compensation to expropriated bondholders.
The Result: Ten years after the nationalization, the Dutch Supreme Court confirmed compensation awards totaling approximately €1 billion including accrued interest.
Looking Ahead: The SNS case provides some interesting lessons on where those seeking compensation in the context of bank bailouts and resolutions may head.
In Mann v. LSQ Funding Group, L.C., 71 F.4th 640 (7th Cir. 2023), reh'g denied, 2023 WL 4684702 (7th Cir. July 21, 2023), the U.S.
Federal appellate courts have traditionally applied a "person aggrieved" standard to determine whether a party has standing to appeal a bankruptcy court order or judgment. However, this standard, which requires a direct, adverse, and financial impact on a potential appellant, is derived from a precursor to the Bankruptcy Code and does not appear in the existing statute.
The court-fashioned doctrine of "equitable mootness" has frequently been applied to bar appeals of bankruptcy court orders under circumstances where reversal or modification of an order could jeopardize, for example, the implementation of a negotiated chapter 11 plan or related agreements and upset the expectations of third parties who have relied on the order.
On June 6, 2023, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas confirmed the chapter 11 plan of bedding manufacturer Serta Simmons Bedding, LLC and its affiliates (collectively, "Serta"). In confirming Serta's plan, the court held that a 2020 "uptier," or "position enhancement," transaction (the "2020 Transaction") whereby Serta issued new debt secured by a priming lien on its assets and purchased its existing debt from participating lenders at a discount with a portion of the proceeds did not violate the terms of Serta's 2016 credit agreement.
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 application of the provision, including application to financial institutions, its preemptive scope, and its application to non-publicly traded securities.
Bankruptcy trustees and chapter 11 debtors-in-possession ("DIPs") frequently seek to avoid fraudulent transfers and obligations under section 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and state fraudulent transfer or other applicable nonbankruptcy laws because the statutory "look-back" period for avoidance under many nonbankruptcy laws exceeds the two-year period governing avoidance actions under section 548.