Fulltext Search

In Uralkali v Rowley and another [2020] EWHC 3442 (Ch), the High Court has confirmed the position in relation to the duties that officeholders owe to third parties involved in the sale process of a business and assets out of an insolvent estate.

On 13 January 2020, the High Court sanctioned the restructuring plans proposed by three UK companies in the DeepOcean group, under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006.

Will the end of the moratorium on evicting commercial tenants in March prompt more CVAs?

With the moratorium on forfeiture of commercial leases for non-payment of rent set to expire on 31 March, many tenants will be working out how to pay their rents. Using a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) may offer one way of compromising rents if landlords decline to negotiate a rent reduction.

But the road towards a CVA is not without its potholes, and there are two key signs that landlords are growing increasingly savvy when reacting to them.

对于《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国民法典〉有关担保制度的解释》(下称“《民法典担保解释》新规”)对金融资管业务的影响,我们在上篇及中篇中从担保物权受托持有、增信文件性质、上市公司对外担保、担保物权登记、抵押预告登记等角度进行了详细探析。本篇我们将从资产收益权回购交易、仲裁与申请实现担保物权程序、担保与破产衔接角度,着重介绍新规的修订及对金融资管业务的影响。择重点概括如下:

一、新规明确特定资产或资产收益权转让及回购交易中让与担保规则的处理方法

The United Kingdom formally left the European Union (EU) at 11pm on the 31 January 2020 (Exit Day) and entered into a period of transition. This transition period largely maintained the “status quo” with regards to restructuring and insolvency law and practice, primarily due to the UK having secured ratification of the withdrawal agreement. This made the arrangements between the UK and the EU fully reciprocal post-Exit Day and avoided the no-deal “cliff edge” Brexit, which many had initially feared.

After a year in which numerous businesses have relied on various forms of government support to stay afloat, many will be hoping that 2021 offers the chance to emerge from this period and resume some degree of normal trading. Certainly, the coming year will be make-or-break time for those businesses that have been most impacted by the pandemic – and as government assistance is wound back, the demand for working capital funding is likely to be high.

引言:近期某集团破产清算案中,关于债务人与境外基金债权人之间因“维好协议”引发的纠纷事项,上海金融法院作出裁定,对境外债权人在香港特别行政区取得的对该债务人的胜诉判决予以认可,鉴此该境外债权人的债权有望在破产程序中获得确认。而其他破产案件中,管理人对境外投资人基于“维好协议”的债权作出不予确认的决定。由此,关于“维好协议”项下的债权人应如何主张权利、在“维好提供方”破产的情况下可否享有破产债权人地位并参与破产程序等问题众说纷纭。为此,本文将从“维好协议”的性质入手,在境内“维好提供方”破产语境下,阐述“维好协议”项下债权人可以主张权利的路径,并分析各救济途径在司法实践中的可行性。

一、“维好协议”的性质分析

(一)何谓“维好协议”

The Court of Appeal judgment handed down on 9 November 2020 in the case of HH Aluminium & Building Products Ltd and another v Bell and another (Joint Trustees In Bankruptcy of Ide) [2020] EWCA Civ 1469 provides a clear warning to applicants: serve your application notice without delay, particularly if a limitation period is close to expiry.

Factual background: