2019年6月17日，中央国债登记结算有限责任公司(以下简称“中央结算公司”)发布《中央结算公司担保品违约处置业务指引(试行)》，银行间市场清算所股份有限公司(以下简称“上海清算所”）发布《银行间市场清算所股份有限公司债券回购违约处置业务实施细则(试行)》和《银行间市场清算所股份有限公司回购债券拍卖处置业务实施细则(试行)》，以及全国银行间同业拆借中心(以下简称“同业拆借中心”)发布《全国银行间同业拆借中心回购违约处置实施细则(试行)》(前述文件以下统称为“违约处置新规”，三家机构统称为“处置机构”)，共同构建及明确银行间债券市场的债券违约处置新制度，开创银行间债券市场债券快速处置新阶段。
处置新规的发布，立即引发了境内外市场参与者的密切关注以及对相关问题的深入探讨。6月20日，中央结算公司及同业拆借中心也分别通过中国债券信息网(www.chinabond.com.cn)和微信公众号“CfetsOnline发布” 进一步发布了关于违约处置新规的答疑。
基于对违约处置新规的解读以及我们与相关市场参与者的讨论，我们拟通过本文做一些初步梳理、探讨和展望。
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”.
British Steel has entered compulsory liquidation today with EY being appointed as special managers. Is British Steel the first real victim of Brexit? First, as a result of the delay in the UK’s divorce deal, the EU delayed granting carbon credits to British Steel necessitating a £120m loan from the government to stave off significant penalties in relation to its emissions targets.
On Monday, May 20, 2019 the Supreme Court settled a decades-long circuit split regarding a licensee’s ongoing trademark usage rights following the rejection of a trademark license agreement under the U.S. bankruptcy code. In an eight to one decision, the Court found that “rejection breaches a contract but does not rescind it. And that means all the rights that would ordinarily survive a contract breach, including those conveyed here, remain in place.”
A Georgia bankruptcy court on April 17 issued a significant ruling that breaks new ground concerning how future claimants’ representatives in asbestos bankruptcies (FCRs) are chosen. In In re The Fairbanks Co., Case No. 18-41768-PWB (Bankr. N.D. Ga.
In the recent UK case of Wright and others v HMV Ecommerce Limited and another [2019] EWCH 903, the Court considered whether an electronic filing (e-filing) of a notice of appointment of administrators by directors outside the court’s opening hours was valid.
Background
On Wednesday, February 20, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Mission Product Holdings vs. Tempnology, LLC. to decide what it means to “reject” a trademark license agreement in bankruptcy.
After months of negotiations, drafts, compromises, and attorney’s fees, you finally enter into a licensing agreement granting you the right to use someone else’s trademark. Months or perhaps years later, the licensor files for bankruptcy and the bankruptcy trustee rejects the license agreement. Can you continue to use the trademark or does the licensor’s rejection of the licensing agreement effectively prohibit your continued usage of the mark?
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