为创新经济发展模式、扩大对外开放力度,国家设立大湾区并着力将其打造为充满活力的世界级城市群和内地与港澳深度合作示范区。从定位不难看出,实行充分的市场经济和法治经济,为全国经济发展提供新的引擎和全新的模式,无疑是粤港澳大湾区的重要使命。要完成这一神圣使命,离不开破产重整制度。通过破产重整,挽救那些一时陷入财务困境和经营困境的企业,从而为湾区经济健康发展保驾护航。SX公司通过破产重整涅槃重生,就是破产重整制度保驾护航的典型案例。
一、企业初探:破产重整的机遇与挑战
1、SX公司基本情况
SX公司成立于1981年,于1994年在深交所上市,总股本约35000万股,其中流通股18000万股,限售流通股17000万股。
SX公司控股或参股四家实业公司,分别为科技公司、实业公司、饲料公司和西部公司。
2、SX公司重整受理情况
因不能清偿到期债务,经债权人饲料公司申请,深圳市中级人民法院(下称深圳中院)于2009年11月10日裁定SX公司进入重整程序,并指定北京市金杜(深圳)律师事务所担任管理人。
For some time now, there has been uncertainty in Australian insolvency law about whether or not insolvency practitioners should apply the statutory priority regimes established by sections 433, 566 and 561 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) when distributing the assets of a “trading trust”. The decision of the New South Wales Supreme Court in Re Independent Contractor Services (Aust) Pty Ltd (In liq) [No 2] (2016) 305 FLR 222, and the myriad of cases that followed it, suggested that the answer was “no”.
In Popular Auto, Inc. v. Reyes-Colon (In re Reyes-Colon), Nos. 17-1971, 17-1972, 2019 WL 1785039 (1st Cir. April 24, 2019), the First Circuit recently ruled that “special circumstances” does not authorize a bankruptcy court to use its equitable powers to contravene the numerosity requirement for an involuntary petition under section 303(b)(1) of the Code. This twelve year dispute did not end well for the petitioning creditors.
Addressing unknown future claims in a chapter 11 bankruptcy involves two competing concerns: (a) providing a debtor with a fresh start and (b) providing an unwitting claimant with due process. These competing concerns clash when a debtor seeks to confirm its plan of reorganization, which is intended to provide remedies to all the debtor’s creditors and provide the debtor with a discharge of all pre-confirmation liabilities.
In Keystone Gas Gathering, L.L.C.v. Ad Hoc Committee of Unsecured Creditorsof Ultra Resources, Incorporated (In re Ultra Petroleum Corporation), Case No. 17-20793, –F.3d–, 2019 WL 237365 (5th Cir. Jan. 17, 2019) (Oldham, J.), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that a class of creditors is not “impaired” by a reorganization plan simply because it (a) incorporates the Bankruptcy Code’s restrictions on payment of unmatured interest and (b) fails to award unsecured creditors interest at the contractual rate.
Australia’s corporate insolvency laws are in a process of significant change.
The latest proposed reform concerns the controversial practice of “phoenixing”. In recent months and years, phoenixing has attracted attention from a wide band of Australian regulators.
The Phoenixing Bill
On January 16, 2019, Gymboree Group, Inc. and 10 affiliated debtors (collectively, “Debtors” or “Gymboree”) filed chapter 11 in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Richmond Division). On January 17, 2019, Gymboree, Inc. commenced a parallel proceeding in Canada under subsection 50.4(a) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada).
On January 16, 2019, Gymboree Group, Inc. and 10 affiliated debtors (collectively, "Debtors" or "Gymboree") filed chapter 11 in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Richmond Division). On January 17, 2019, Gymboree, Inc. commenced a parallel proceeding in Canada under subsection 50.4(a) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada).
In In re Argon Credit, LLC, et al., Case No. 16-39654 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Jan. 10, 2019), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois recently held that a standby clause in a subordination agreement prevented a subordinated lender from conducting discovery on the senior lender's claim, pursuant to section 510 of the Bankruptcy Code.
Facts
In In re Argon Credit, LLC, et al., Case No. 16-39654 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Jan. 10, 2019), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois recently held that a standby clause in a subordination agreement prevented a subordinated lender from conducting discovery on the senior lender’s claim, pursuant to section 510 of the Bankruptcy Code.