商事合同中通常会订有合同解除条款，比如满足约定条件或情形下，一方得以解除合同的单方解除条款。单方解除条款系商事主体在一定情形下为脱离合同而预先设置的退出机制，它保证了商事主体的意思自治，同时避免了各方受到已无价值的合同关系的拖累。近几年来，受经济大环境的影响，不少商事主体的经营遭遇困难，破产成为企业面临的高概率情形。破产不仅会影响到破产企业本身，亦会影响与破产企业签署商业合同的其他主体，例如，在《企业破产法》（“《破产法》”）第十八条的规定下，前述单方解除权的行使就会受到一定限制。在本文中，我们将提示和阐释该限制，并提出相应的解决方案与风险防范措施。
一、合同约定解除权
一份完整的合同通常会约定合同解除的条款，通常包括双方协商一致解除合同，以及约定条件下一方单方解除合同。关于单方解除合同条款，一般会有类似以下的约定：
“当一方进入破产程序、破产重整、清盘、资不抵债或其它类似的法律程序时，另一方有权立即书面通知对方解除合同。”
Many years ago, back when mediation is a rarity in bankruptcy disputes, I asked an old-timer this question:
Why is the bankruptcy system a lagging adopter of mediation?”
A Surprising Answer
The old-timer gave this surprising answer:
“At the time of the Bankruptcy Code’s enactment, the bankruptcy judge was viewed as a mediator in the judge’s own court.”
The old-timer added this. When the Bankruptcy Code was enacted:
The Bankruptcy Protector
Darren Azman and Natalie Rowles, McDermott Will & Emery
This is an extract from the third edition of GRR's The Art of the Ad Hoc. The whole publication is available here.
Introduction
For a decade or more, restructuring professionals have predicted the coming of a bankruptcy boom. This may be the year those predictions finally come true. Inflation, interest rates, supply chain issues, global conflict and domestic politics have created a challenging macro environment. At the same time, dry powder abounds, with new distressed debt funds cropping up daily. Will this result in a bankruptcy tidal wave, or an increase in workouts and distressed M&A? Perhaps all of the above.
Este mes apenas se han publicado resoluciones que consideremos reseñables, sólo tres de tres audiencias provinciales nos han parecido dignas de atención. A cambios las tres hacen pronunciamentos muy interesantes.
Audiencias Provinciales
Compensación de pagos entre un hotel y su operador por derivarse de una misma relación contractual.
This article is the China Chapter of Sporting Succession in Football, a publication by Sports and Policy Centre, print copy available at: http://www.sportslawandpolicycentre.com/
A. Applicable Regulation of the Member Association
Over the last two years, courtesy of a once-a-century pandemic, government-mandated business closures, nationwide stay-at-home orders, and—unprecedented—disruptions to the global supply chain have illuminated, previously unknown, vulnerabilities across a whole host of industries. Would anyone have seriously questioned the viability of office space two years ago? Now, inflation, in keeping with the recent chaos, may be upending the viability of another tried-and-tested institution: the supply contract.
On Sept. 19, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia entered an order1 adopting the report and recommendation, or R&R, of the chief bankruptcy judge2 approving the fee applications of three law firms in the retail group bankruptcy cases, including the requested national rates.
The Bankruptcy Protector
On August 18, 2022, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Indiana, in In re BWGS, LLC, No. 19-01487-JMC-7A, 2022 WL 3568045 (Bankr. S.D. Ind. Aug. 18, 2022), narrowly interpreted the safe harbor provision in section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code by refusing to dismiss a lawsuit against a guarantor whose liability was eliminated by the debtor’s payment to the bank that held the guarantee.
Overview on Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code