In the recent decision of Re PBS Building (Qld) Pty Ltd [2024] QSC 108, the Supreme Court of Queensland considered for the first time the operation of the State’s new project and retention trust account regime in the context of an insolvency. The decision provides useful guidance to insolvency practitioners and subcontractors as to their rights in relation to trust accounts established by an insolvent head contractor.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion is Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Co., Inc., Case No. 22-1079, Decided June 6, 2024.
Opinion’s Q & A
The Truck Insurance question is this:
- Whether an insurer with financial responsibility for a bankruptcy claim is a “party in interest” under § 1109(b)?
The Supreme Court’s answer is this:
导言
股东出资加速到期，是与注册资本认缴制紧密关联、对股东的法定出资期限利益进行限制与收回的“反向”制度。本次公司法修订中，该制度被深度重塑。
一方面，该制度的相关规定不再分散于其他法律、司法解释、会议纪要等文件中，而是首次明确规定于《公司法》中。另一方面，也是更为重要的是，本次制度调整是在资本制度改革的大背景下完成的。本次公司法修订的一大亮点是资本制度的系统化改革和完善，在股东出资层面主要包括有限公司收紧为五年内限期认缴制、股份公司重回实缴制、增加股东未按期缴纳出资的催缴失权制度、新增非破产情形下股东出资加速到期制度、明确股权转让后转让人和受让人的责任等，其中任何一项制度的改变均与其他制度的变化息息相关。
本文的目的在于揭示新《公司法》资本制度系统性调整的背景下，规则之间的内在联系和互动关系，帮助读者更好地整体性理解股东出资加速到期相关新规。
一、“股东出资加速到期”的两类情形
股东出资加速到期是注册资本认缴制下，为保护公司及债权人利益而限制股东期限利益的特殊公司法制度，[1]具体指在特定情形下，出资期限未届满且未完全实缴的股东，丧失原有的出资期限利益，需要提前缴纳出资。
On April 23, 2024, the American Bankruptcy Institute’s Subchapter V Task Force issued its Final Report.
This article is the eighth in a series summarizing and condensing the Task Force’s Final Report into “a nutshell.” The subject of this article is:
- whether the Subchapter V trustee or other party in interest should be allowed to file a plan after debtor’s removal from possession.[Fn. 1]
Recommendation
We have a direct statutory conflict:
- one statute requires an ERISA dispute to be resolved in arbitration; but
- a bankruptcy statute requires the same dispute to be resolved in bankruptcy.
Which statute should prevail? The bankruptcy statute, of course.
- That’s the conclusion of In re Yellow Corp.[Fn. 1]
Statutory Conflict
The In re Yellow Corp. case presents a direct conflict between these two federal statutes (emphases added):
On April 23, 2024, the American Bankruptcy Institute’s Subchapter V Task Force issued its Final Report.
This article is the seventh in a series summarizing and condensing the Task Force’s Final Report into “a nutshell.” The subject of this article is:
- whether the $7,500,000 debt cap for Subchapter V eligibility should remain or revert to an interest-adjusted $3,024,725.
Recommendation
On April 23, 2024, the American Bankruptcy Institute’s Subchapter V Task Force issued its Final Report.
This article is the sixth in a series summarizing and condensing the Task Force’s Final Report into “a nutshell.” The subject of this article is:
- whether a Subchapter V trustee should act as a mediator.[Fn. 1]
Recommendation
“Subchapter V relieves small business debtors from the absolute priority rule.”[Fn. 1]
- This was the excuse for a contorted grammatical interpretation, against the debtor, of a Subchapter V statute by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals gives the same excuse for the same contorted grammatical interpretation — like this:
On April 23, 2024, the American Bankruptcy Institute’s Subchapter V Task Force issued its Final Report.
This article is the fourth in a series summarizing and condensing the Task Force’s Final Report into “a nutshell.” The subject of this article is:
The opinion is In re Packet Construction, LLC, Case No. 23-10860 in the Western Texas Bankruptcy Court (issued April 30, 2024, Doc. 103).
Subchapter V Issue & Ruling
Here’s the issue raised by the Subchapter V Trustee’s plan objection and the Bankruptcy Court’s ruling thereon.
–Issue