2017年1月07日，在《人民法院报》最新公布的 “2016年度人民法院十大民事行政案件”中，金杜律师事务所代理的江苏舜天船舶股份有限公司（简称“舜天船舶”）破产重整案名列其中。该案不仅是适用最高人民法院和证监会之间会商机制的首个案例，也是上市公司重整同时完成重大资产重组的首个案例，在案件处理的参考性以及对于市场和社会的整体影响方面均意义重大。每年由《人民法院报》编辑部评出的十大案件均为在过去一年中全国各级法院审判的具有重大社会影响力、案情疑难复杂或审判结果有重大突破和借鉴作用的典型案件。
舜天船舶是一家从事船舶和非船舶贸易的国有控股上市公司。受航运及船舶市场持续低迷的影响，自2014年起舜天船舶的经营危机和债务危机开始显现，且日趋严重，渐至资不抵债，面临严峻的退市风险。最终舜天船舶于2016年2月5日被南京市中级人民法院（简称“南京中院”）裁定进入破产重整程序。南京中院通过公开选任方式，经过层层选拔，最终确定金杜为本案管理人，负责开展相关重整工作。
2017年1月07日，在《人民法院报》最新公布的 “2016年度人民法院十大民事行政案件”中，金杜律师事务所代理的江苏舜天船舶股份有限公司（简称“舜天船舶”）破产重整案名列其中。该案不仅是适用最高人民法院和证监会之间会商机制的首个案例，也是上市公司重整同时完成重大资产重组的首个案例，在案件处理的参考性以及对于市场和社会的整体影响方面均意义重大。每年由《人民法院报》编辑部评出的十大案件均为在过去一年中全国各级法院审判的具有重大社会影响力、案情疑难复杂或审判结果有重大突破和借鉴作用的典型案件。
舜天船舶是一家从事船舶和非船舶贸易的国有控股上市公司。受航运及船舶市场持续低迷的影响，自2014年起舜天船舶的经营危机和债务危机开始显现，且日趋严重，渐至资不抵债，面临严峻的退市风险。最终舜天船舶于2016年2月5日被南京市中级人民法院（简称“南京中院”）裁定进入破产重整程序。南京中院通过公开选任方式，经过层层选拔，最终确定金杜为本案管理人，负责开展相关重整工作。
In an order issued today, Judge Dalton of the Middle District of Florida held that in a non-bankruptcy context, allegations that collection of a mortgage debt is barred by the statute of limitations do not form a “plausible basis” for claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, or the Declaratory Judgment Act.
On November 21, 2016, in a case entitled In re Monson,1 the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's decision,2 which held that a debtor's conduct constituted a willful and malicious injury to a creditor within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(6), because the debtor injured the creditor's right to recover its loan, the injury was intended, and the debtor was conscious of his wrongdoing. Thus, the debt was nondischargeable under 523(a)(6).
Exceptions to the Dischargeability of Debt under Section 523 of the Bankruptcy Code
The Bankruptcy Code gives a trustee the power to avoid pre-petition fraudulent and preference transfers made by a debtor, except that a trustee may not avoid a transfer that is "made by or to (or for the benefit of)" a party enumerated in 546(e) of the Code "in connection with a securities contract." Although 546(e) has been applied in various circumstances, there is little court guidance on whether 546(e) protects transfers made to repay commercial mortgage-backed securities ("CMBS") loans. One case in particular has applied 546(e) to dismiss such an avoidance action: Krol v.
An insolvent enterprise incorporated in Mainland China (“PRC”) or its creditors (“Applicant”) may institute a bankruptcy proceeding against the insolvent enterprise under the PRC Enterprise Bankruptcy Law (“Bankruptcy Law”) by the filing of a bankruptcy petition. There have long been complaints by industry practitioners that PRC courts are reluctant to register bankruptcy petitions.
任何在中国内地（“”）注册成立的企业，如不能清偿到期债务，并且资产不足以清偿全部债务或者明显缺乏清偿能力的，可由该企业或其债权人（“”）提交破产申请，继而根据《中华人民共和国企业破产法》（“《破产法》”）对该企业发起破产法律程序。但是，长期以来，备受业内人士诟病的是，中国法院迟迟未对破产申请实施立案登记制度。在此背景下，最高人民法院（“”）于2016年7月颁布指导通知[1]（“《2016年最高院通知》”），旨在简化和规范登记破产案件的立案受理工作。
最高院通知：优化立案程序
The High Court this afternoon unanimously dismissed Clive Palmer and Ian Ferguson's challenge to the constitutional validity of section 596A of the Corporations Act.
This means that a liquidator's power to publicly examine and compel the production of documents remains intact and removes any doubt about the powers of liquidators under section 596A of the Corporations Act.
Arguments made by Clive Palmer and Ian Ferguson
Burr & Forman lawyers won a significant victory in the Eleventh Circuit earlier this month. In the case In re: David A. Failla, — F.3d — (2016), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed that a person who agrees to “surrender” his house in bankruptcy pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 521(a)(2) may not oppose the creditor’s foreclosure action in state court. Our firm was one of the first to advance this argument, and many, but not all, of the bankruptcy judges in Florida agreed with our interpretation of surrender under the bankruptcy code and related case law.
On October 11, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States granted cert in Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson, No. 16-348 (Oct. Term 2016) to resolve a split among the Circuits as to the FDCPA’s prohibition against deceptive collection practices in the context of filing proofs of claim for debts where a collection action would otherwise be time-barred.