3月9日，最高人民法院院长周强在第十三届全国人大一次会议第二次全体会议上作最高人民法院工作报告，重点提及25个在过去五年中具有全国代表性并深具行业参考意义的大案要案，金杜代理的 “重庆钢铁破产重整案”、“东北特钢破产重整案”和“华为诉美国交互数字公司滥用市场支配地位案” 入选报告重点典型案件。

“东北特钢破产重整案：东北特钢重整之后两个月实现扭亏为盈，开启了民营控股的混合所有制运营新模式，为辽宁的国企改革提供了新路径。”

东北特钢破产重整案是近年来破产重整领域内出现的债务总额最高的案件之一，受到社会各方的高度关注。重整计划综合运用留债、一次性现金清偿、债转股等手段，妥善处理了逾七百亿元的债务问题。重整期间尊重当事方的意愿，运用市场的机制和手段，通过公开、公平、公正的程序遴选了重整投资人，得到了债权人的普遍认可。该案具有诸多创新之举，在重整投资人引进、关联公司整体重整、债权清偿方案设计、债转股等方面都进行了创新，为破产重整实践、立法完善和理论研究提供了成功的案例。

A paradigm shift is underway in Australian corporate restructuring.

Bold reforms are already in force which have changed the landscape for companies, their directors, creditors and other stakeholders.

From 1 July 2018, termination and other rights against companies in administration and other restructuring-related procedures will be unenforceable under the ipso facto reform.

Regulations are expected to have significant effect on the scope of the stay – these regulations are yet to be published.

Since the decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in Re Independent [2016] NSWSC 106, there has been doubt about whether receivers and liquidators should apply the statutory priorities afforded to employee entitlements in sections 433, 561 and 556 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) when distributing the assets of companies who have conducted their businesses as trusts.

In January 2018, the Aviation Working Group (“AWG”)1 as part of its review of closing opinion practice, released a revised Form of Cape Town Convention Closing Opinion. The aim of the review was to provide further guidance and consistency in the approach legal practitioners adopt in respect of Cape Town and the State of Registry Jurisdiction.

The AWG was founded in 1994, with stated aims of contributing to the development and acceptance of policies and laws that:

• facilitate advanced international aviation financing and leasing, and

In a significant decision for the insurance industry, the Federal Court of Australia has granted leave to shareholders to bring a direct action against a company’s insurers where the (insured) company was in liquidation. This is one of the earliest cases to make use of the new Civil Liability (Third Party Claims Against Insurers) Act 2017 (NSW) (Third Party Claim Act), and provides some useful guidance for the industry on how this new legislation will be applied.

The decision impacts plaintiff lawyers, policyholders and insurers alike. Importantly:

In a recent winding-up case, Discreet Ltd v. Wing Bo Building Construction Co., Ltd [2017] HCCW 49/2017, the Court confirmed that when there is clearly a cross-claim which exceeds the sum claimed by the petitioner, and it is clear that the cross-claim is genuine and based on substantial grounds, the petition can amount to an abuse of process.

Background

Generally speaking, the most appropriate jurisdiction in which to wind up a company is the jurisdiction where the company is incorporated, and the jurisdiction to wind up a foreign company has often been described as exorbitant or as usurping the functions of the courts of the country of incorporation.

The case of Wing Hong Construction Limited v Hui Chi Yung and Ors [2017] HKEC 1173 provides an overview of the legal principles which apply to an application for security for costs, where the Plaintiff against whom security is sought is a company and the application is made under section 905 of the Companies Ordinance (Cap 622). This was an appeal against the decision of a Master who had dismissed the Defendant’s application for security for costs against the Plaintiff which was a private company in liquidation. The appeal was allowed and security for costs of HK$2 million ordered.

In Re Lucky Resources (HK) Ltd [2016] 4 HKLRD 301, Hong Kong’s Court of First Instance had to consider the question of whether an arbitration award could be enforced by winding up the company against which the award had been made, without first applying for leave to enforce the award under section 84 of the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609). The Court answered that question in the affirmative.

上一篇我们谈到诉讼主体的确定问题，本文将从担保的视角对债券持有人的权利救济予以分析。

保证人单方出具《保证函》的效力