Introduction

Federal Decree-Law No. 51/2023 Promulgating the Financial Reorganisation and Bankruptcy Law (the Bankruptcy Law) introduced a new bankruptcy regime in the UAE, but left a number of key issues to be addressed under later implementing regulations. These regulations have now been issued under Cabinet Decision No. 94/2024 on the Implementing Regulation of the Financial Restructuring and Bankruptcy Law (the Implementing Regulations).

自主清算程序相对更加灵活，可根据实际情况灵活调整清算策略，因此退出效率会更高。破产清算需要根据企业破产法的规定履行相应的程序流程并受法院监督，清产核资、拍卖处置资产也是时间不可控的程序，原则上破产清算周期更长。尽管如此，从破产管理人的选派程序和破产清算的申请流程看，破产管理人由法院指定，而后从破产申请到清算程序终止的一系列工作，均由破产管理人负责开展，公司股东工作量极大减少。

图：源自投中网

虽然过去五年国有资本的参股投资行为在投资金额上并不领先，但其项目数量远超并购及新股发行认购行为。与此相对应的是，国务院国资委于2023年6月23日发布了《国有企业参股管理暂行办法》（国资发改革规〔2023〕41号）（简称“暂行办法”），该办法对国有资本的投资、管理、退出进行了规范，标志着国资监管向强化国有企业参股管理迈进了一大步。《暂行办法》将适用范围扩大至所有国资委履行出资人职责的企业及其子企业，而不仅局限于中央企业^[1]。

在投资方面，该办法对国有资本进行了谦抑化规范，严控非主业投资，例如第六条要求国有资产投资“坚持聚焦主责主业，符合企业发展战略规划，严控非主业投资，不得通过参股等方式开展投资项目负面清单规定的禁止类业务”。

I’m serving on a Drafting Committee of the Uniform Law Commission for a uniform law on assignment for benefit of creditors (“ABC”). A draft of such a uniform law is coming together, with lots of input from many people and organizations. And we are always looking for more input!

“A discharge under section 727, 1141, 1192 [Subchapter V], 1228(a), 1228(b), or 1328(b) of this title does not dischargean individual debtor from any debt— . . .”

11 U.S.C. § 523(a) (emphasis added).

Bankruptcy courts applying the foregoing language in the early days of Subchapter V found such language to be clear and unambiguous: that only “an individual debtor” is affected.

To prevent landlords under long-term real property leases from reaping a windfall for future rent claims at the expense of other creditors, the Bankruptcy Code caps the amount of a landlord's claim against a debtor-tenant for damages "resulting from the termination" of a real property lease.

Ever since Congress amended the Bankruptcy Code in 1984 to remedy the U.S. Supreme Court's 1982 ruling declaring the jurisdictional groundwork of title 11 unconstitutional, there have been lingering questions regarding the scope of a bankruptcy court's jurisdiction to rule on the many matters and proceedings that must typically be resolved in a bankruptcy case. One of those questions—namely, whether the bankruptcy court retains jurisdiction over claims and assets with respect to which the court has granted relief from the Bankruptcy Code's "automatic stay"—was addressed by the U.S.

As the enactment of chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code approaches its 20-year anniversary, U.S. bankruptcy courts are still grappling with some unresolved issues concerning how its provisions should be applied to best harmonize cross-border bankruptcy cases. One of those issues was the subject of a bench ruling handed down by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.

Confirmation of a chapter 11 plan providing for the reorganization or liquidation of a debtor is the culmination of the chapter 11 process. To promote the fundamental policy of finality in that process, the general rule is that a final confirmation order is inviolable. The absence of certainty that the transactions effectuated under a plan are valid and permanent would undermine chapter 11's fundamental purpose as a vehicle for rehabilitating ailing enterprises and providing debtors with a fresh start.

Disagreement regarding the interpretation of section 365(c) of the Bankruptcy Code has led to divergent rulings among the bankruptcy and federal circuit courts regarding whether a bankruptcy trustee or chapter 11 debtor can assume an executory contract or unexpired lease that is unassignable under applicable non-bankruptcy law without the counterparty's consent—even where the debtor has no intention of assigning the agreement to a third party.