On 14 March 2023, a new law (Tijdelijke wet transparantie turboliquidatie) was adopted by the Dutch legislator. This law introduces a filing obligation of the managing board that will apply to shortened liquidation procedures applied as per 15 November 2023. Under this obligation, the managing board of the company must file certain (financial) documents with the Dutch trade register and inform creditors of the company of this filing.

Nach der Implementierung des StaRUG-Verfahrens in 2021 zeichnet sich abermalig die Einführung eines neuen sanierungsrechtlichen Verfahrens ab. Auch wenn der europäische Gesetzgebungsprozess sich noch in einem frühen Stadium befindet, verspricht die bisher angedachte Art und Weise der Umsetzung der gesetzlichen Änderungen sowohl für (potentielle) Schuldner als auch für die übrigen Beteiligten im insolvenznahen Umfeld weitreichende Folgen zu haben.

On 1 November 2023, the new Luxembourg law of 7 August 2023 on the continuation of businesses and the modernisation of insolvency law (the “New Law”) entered into force. The New Law introduces new safeguard mechanisms designed to promote the continuity and preservation of businesses and the jobs that go with it. It provides for a mix of out-of-court and in-court procedures, including the option for a conciliator, the possibility of amicable agreements and judicial reorganisation procedures, and grants unfortunate but bona fide traders a second chance.

On 30 October 2023, the UK government published an update on its legislative approach for regulating fiat-backed stablecoins, following on from its consultation on the UK regulatory approach to cryptoassets and stablecoins in January 2021, and the response to that consultation in April 2022. Alongside this, it published a response to its consultation on the approach to managing the failure of systemic digital settlement asset (DSA) (including stablecoin) firms.

The Hong Kong court has granted an order forcing an uncooperative former director of a Hong Kong listed company to ratify the appointment of a Hong Kong liquidator as the sole director of the companies' four BVI subsidiaries. The court rejected the idea that the liquidators should be made to apply for fresh winding up orders in the BVI and stressed that courts should be ready to offer each other mutual assistance.

Industrial and manufacturing businesses face all kinds of challenges: pricing and competitive pressures; regulatory demands; cross-border trade regulations and obligations; and litigation risk stemming from environmental and tort claims. These challenges create risks around every corner, some even rising to the level of "bet-the-company" issues – the things that keep GCs up at night.

The Singapore High Court has again confirmed that a winding-up application concerning a disputed debt that is subject to an arbitration agreement will be dismissed if the arbitration agreement is prima facie valid and covers the dispute. This prima facie standard of review was first formulated three years ago by the Singapore Court of Appeal in AnAn Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd v VTB Bank (Public Joint Stock Company) [2020] SCGA 33.

近几年，受技术红利、产品市场、资本市场政策等多方面因素的影响，一些具有中国元素的美国公司寻求在中国境内（“境内”）市场的融资，探寻落地境内进而实现境内IPO的路径，但是，基于中美法律、税务系统的差异，在论证重组路径的过程中经常会耗费大量时间和金钱成本，往往因创始人和股东的美籍身份在重组过程中面临巨大的美国税负而导致重组搁浅。本文结合我们的实操经验对美国公司重组落回境内涉及的相关要点问题进行分析。

一、架构拆除的必要性

根据我国《公司法》，上市公司是指股票在证券交易所上市交易的、在中国境内设立的股份有限公司。但是，对于境外主体在境内A股上市的突破体现在根据《关于开展创新企业境内发行股票或存托凭证试点若干意见的通知》规定红筹企业允许发行股票或存托凭证在境内上市，例如“H公司（证券代码：688***）”以红筹企业通过直接跨境发行股票的方式以及“J公司（证券代码：689***）”以红筹企业通过发行存托凭证（CDR）的方式在境内上市，但前述情形下对于拟上市公司“红筹企业”的行业、预计市值等方面要求较高，且“红筹企业”一般被认为是注册在境外，主要经营活动在境内的企业[1]。因此，对于主要业务运营在美国且融资平台注册在中国境外的主体目前仍难以在境内直接上市。

Three recent Hong Kong first instance court decisions have left undecided the question of whether a winding-up petition will trump an agreement to arbitrate when it comes to a winding-up and particularly in the context of cross-claims. A Court of Final Appeal decision this spring had seemed to provide pointers that the parties' agreement would be upheld but the issue – particularly when it comes to unmeritorious and late arbitration applications – is dividing the courts.

前言

《中华人民共和国企业破产法》（“《破产法》”）在公平清理债权债务、维护社会经济秩序等方面起到了重要的作用。但《破产法》下限制表决权的条款也因缺乏统一具体的适用标准——尤其是庭外程序表决效力的延伸、职工债权人和出资人表决权规范缺失等——而导致问题层出不穷，本文拟探其详并予建议。

一、破产表决权限制条款的适用问题

（一）禁反言规则在破产程序中的适用

《全国法院民商事审判工作会议纪要》（以下简称“《九民纪要》”）第一百一十五条认可了庭外重组协议在破产重整中的效力，但是在司法实践中仍然存在诸多问题。

第一，《九民纪要》第一百一十五条明确的是庭外重组与庭内重整程序的衔接。从文义解释角度，该条仅能适用于最终转化为破产重整的庭外重组程序。而庭内企业拯救程序不仅包括破产重整程序，同时也包括破产和解程序。庭外债务重组协议的效力能否延伸到破产和解程序中仍有待进一步明确。