On 27th March 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) delivered a ruling in the case Matthäus Metzler, acting as insolvency practitioner in insolvency proceedings vs. Auto1 European Cars BV (Case C‑186/24) concerning the interpretation of Article 31(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings (the “Insolvency Regulation”).
It’s hard to write a pithy article about the transfer of proceedings from the High Court in London to the Central London County Court (CLCC), but given its wide-reaching implications I thought it was worth a try.
摘要
近年来，随着市场环境的急剧变化，中资美元债违约事件频发。其中，维好协议（Keepwell Deed）作为一项相对创新的增信工具，因特殊的法律定位，可执行性一度成为争议的焦点。2025年3月19日，中国香港终审法院对北大方正集团有限公司维好协议案的裁定再次引发业界关注。本文拟通过剖析维好协议在中资美元债中的适用背景、条款特征，结合典型案例，总结维好协议的法律风险与实践挑战，以期为相关的跨境融资和资本市场参与者提供借鉴和参考。
一、维好协议的背景与整体概况
（一）中资美元债的现状与发展
노동팀 뉴스레터 제11호 (03) 노동칼럼
1. 들어가며
저성장 위기 속에서 기업들은 다양한 방식으로 경영 악화를 타개하기 위해 노력한다. 근본적으로는 새로운 성장 동력 확보가 중요하겠지만, 비용 지출을 줄이기 위한 노력을 병행하는 경우가 많다. 그리고 인건비 절감 차원에서 저성과자를 중심으로 한 구조조정 방안은 언제나 빠지지 않고 논의되는 대책 중 하나다.
2. 저성과자 해고(통상해고)는 여전히 까다롭다
Introduction
The Supreme Court's recent judgement in Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. Girish Sriram Juneja & Ors.[1] has reignited the debate in respect of the timing for Competition Commission of India (“CCI”) approval for resolution plans under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).
A recent judgment by the Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has once again brought to light one of the many vulnerabilities in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC/Code). The judgment primarily deals with the termination of a lease during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and the effect of the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC on leasehold properties.
Introduction
Case Title: Ganesh Ramkisan Rajale v. Panchtatwa Milk Industries Private Limited
Facts of the Case
Case:Bahadur Ram Mallah (Ex-Director, Uniworth Textiles Limited) Versus Assets Reconstruction Company (India) Limited and Anr
Facts of the Case
ICICI Bank and IFCI Ltd. had sanctioned loan facilities to Uniworth Textiles Ltd. (“UTL”), a company part of the larger Uniworth Group. These loan accounts eventually turned non-performing, and both banks assigned their respective debts to the Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. (“ARC”) — ICICI's on 31.03.2004 and IFCI’s on 12.01.2007.
Case:Rahee Jhajharia E to E JV v. MB Power (Madhya Pradesh Ltd.)
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi, has ruled that an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), cannot be admitted when there is no direct contractual relationship between the Operational Creditor and the Corporate Debtor. In this case the Tribunal dismissed the claim of ₹16.08 crore, holding that the invoices were raised by the Appellant against Hindustan Thermal and not to the Corporate Debtor itself.