Over the past few months, Delaware courts have continued to address important M&A and corporate issues. Significant corporate law developments have also arisen from state and federal courts in California. Below are some highlights and practical takeaways related to important developments in Delaware law.

CORPORATE

Advance Notice Bylaws and Board Action Affecting the Stockholder Franchise.

Divorce and Family partner Lisette Dupré and Commercial Litigation partner Elaina Bailes were among 500 lawyers from more than 50 countries who gathered for the AIJA International Young Lawyers’ Congress in Rio between 20 and 26 August. This year’s theme was rethinking the law in four dimensions, which called upon speakers to think more about how the law may develop in the next five years than simply looking at how it stands today.

Three recent Hong Kong first instance court decisions have left undecided the question of whether a winding-up petition will trump an agreement to arbitrate when it comes to a winding-up and particularly in the context of cross-claims. A Court of Final Appeal decision this spring had seemed to provide pointers that the parties' agreement would be upheld but the issue – particularly when it comes to unmeritorious and late arbitration applications – is dividing the courts.

“(b) Duties.—The [Subchapter V] trustee shall— . . . (7)facilitatethe development of a consensual plan of reorganization.”

• From 11 U.S.C § 1183(b)(7)(emphasis added).

Facilitation is, by statute, a duty of every Subchapter V trustee—something a Subchapter V trustee must do. But the nature and boundaries of the facilitation role have always been fuzzy and, therefore, misunderstood.

My purpose in this multi-part series is to provide observations on the facilitation role.

August, 2023 For Private Circulation - Educational & Informational Purpose Only A BRIEFING ON LEGAL MATTERS OF CURRENT INTEREST KEY HIGHLIGHTS * Calcutta High Court: Courts cannot re-appreciate the evidence or substitute its view with that of the arbitrator while considering the issue of enforcement of a foreign award.

The recent Hong Kong Court of First Instance decision of Re Shandong Chenming Paper Holdings Limited marks another intersection between the public domain of insolvency and the private realm of arbitration.

In this and previous decisions, the Hong Kong courts have grappled with the issue of which should take priority – a winding-up petition, or the contractual term in the relevant contract that states disputes are to be resolved through arbitration or litigation.

Two primary considerations fuel this debate:

In a recent Court of First Instance decision in Re Shandong Chenming Paper Holdings Ltd [2023] HKCFI 2065 (Shandong Chenming), Harris J addressed the following issues which are important factors to be considered by creditors in strategising whether to opt for commencing winding-up proceedings against a debtor in recovering a debt, as well as by debtors in potentially raising cross-claims to defend a winding-up petition:

The original version of this article was first published in the Trilegal Quarterly Roundup.

Key Developments

1. Supreme Court clarifies the scope of adjudicating authority’s power to decide on a financial creditor’s insolvency application when debt and default have been established

第１ はじめに 

国際契約を中心に、契約書に仲裁条項が設けられることは 珍しくありません。仲裁条項のある契約について紛争が生じた 場合、裁判所ではなく合意された仲裁機関での紛争解決が 試みられます。では、このような仲裁条項のある契約について、 一方当事者が倒産した場合、仲裁条項は引き続き有効でしょ うか。仲裁という当事者間の合意を重視する手続と、倒産とい う強行法規的に一律かつ集団的な調整を行う手続とは、相 互に相反するようにも見受けられます。仲裁と倒産の関係につ いては、国際的にも大きな議論があるところですが、以下で は、仲裁条項のある契約につき、海外の契約相手が破産した 場面を想定して、基本的な考え方を概観したいと思います。

第２ 仲裁合意は破産管財人を拘束するか

一般的な仲裁条項は、例えば、以下のような条項であり、契 約に関するあらゆる紛争は、合意された仲裁条項に基づき、 合意された仲裁機関（下記の例では、シンガポール国際仲裁 センター）で仲裁により最終解決されます。

The Federal Court of Australia recently determined an application brought by the administrators of a company in voluntary administration seeking judicial guidance on how to deal with claims for costs and interests resulting from two prior arbitrations. The key issue was whether the costs and interests awarded in the previous arbitrations were admissible to proof in the administration of the company, having regard to the fact that the relevant arbitral awards were made after the appointment of administrators.

The Court made a distinction between the two arbitrations as follows: