I. Introduction

Proceedings against personal guarantors find their origin in Section 128 of the Contract Act, 1872 which deals with the co-extensive liability of a surety. It has long been considered that a surety’s liability to pay the debt is not removed by reason of the creditor’s omission to sue the principal debtor. Such a creditor is not bound to exhaust his remedy against the principal debtor before suing the surety, and a suit may be maintained against the surety even though the principal debtor has not been sued.

There have been several so-called "uptier" transactions over the last several years, where lenders have provided "rescue financing" to a distressed company senior in priority to existing debt. While there has been significant commentary about whether such financings are contractually permitted, there have been few decisions analyzing challenges to such transactions.¹ In Bayside Capital Inc. v. TPC Group Inc.

The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari on June 27, 2022, to determine whether section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code—concerning appellate review of bankruptcy court sale orders—is jurisdictional or only limits the remedy an appellate court may fashion. This issue has split the circuit courts of appeals. The case is set for oral argument in the October 2022 term.

中国半導体大手の紫光集団は破産の発表後、新たな株主を取り込んでいるが、鴻海集団傘下の富士康工業互聯網（FII）も新株主として名を連ねており、今後総額約98億元（約435億台湾ドル）の出資を行う予定である。これにより鴻海集団の半導体事業ポートフォリオは大きな飛躍を遂げると見られる。

中国メディアの報道によると、紫光集団は7月11日に会社株式及び新任取締役、監査役、CEOに関する工商変更登記手続きを完了させている。これまで株主だった清華控股及び北京健坤投資集団は完全に撤退し、智路資本及び建広資産管理により立ち上げられた北京智広芯控股が紫光集団全ての株式を継承した。

業界の分析によれば、紫光集団の事業領域はメモリやIC設計に及び、同集団は中国最大のメモリチップメーカー・長江存儲や、独立系の携帯端末用チップメーカー・紫光展鋭の株主でもある。鴻海集団の紫光集団への出資は、鴻海集団のメモリ及び通信用チップ事業への参入、さらにはファウンドリ／製造、IC設計、OSATがワンストップサービスで行われることを意味する。メモリや通信用チップはいずれも現在鴻海集団で不足している半導体資源であるため、メモリーや通信に関する事業ポートフォリオを拡大できれば、今後半導体や電気自動車事業において大きなアドバンテージとなる。

Good afternoon.

Following are this week’s summaries of the Court of Appeal for Ontario for the week of July 11, 2022. There were many interesting cases this week.

In Humphrey v. Mene Inc., the Court allowed an appeal in part and reduced damages for wrongful dismissal from twelve months to seven as a result of the plaintiff’s failure to reasonably mitigate by accepting another comparable position seven months after she had been dismissed. The awards of aggravated and punitive damages were upheld.

With priming transactions experiencing a resurgence over the past few years, there have been a number of different routes taken by lenders with one goal in mind - Assemble a majority position and exchange, refinance or otherwise abandon their existing positions to move up the capital structure, which in turn helps increase their blended return on their exposure to a borrower and prevents a different configuration of investors from grabbing the “high ground” above them.

Earlier this year, we highlighted the US Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari in Siegel v. Fitzgerald (In re Circuit City Stores, Inc.) to determine whether a 2017 statute that increased Chapter 11 quarterly fees was constitutional. The Supreme Court has spoken and deemed the increase unconstitutional under the Bankruptcy Clause, which requires that bankruptcy laws be uniform.

In het tweede kwartaal van 2022 zijn op www.rechtspraak.nl 52 uitspraken gepubliceerd waarin de ingestelde vordering gegrond was op bestuurdersaansprakelijkheid. Het betrof 3 uitspraken van de Hoge Raad, 6 conclusies van de advocaat-generaal bij de Hoge Raad, 15 uitspraken van de gerechtshoven en 28 van rechtbanken.

In deze Kwartaalupdate Bestuurdersaansprakelijkheid voor Q2 2022 is een selectie

gemaakt uit deze uitspraken. De navolgende onderwerpen komen aan bod:

01. Bestuurdersaansprakelijkheid en matiging

(Hoge Raad 13 mei 2022) 2

News outlets and industry publications have been publishing information about recent “crypto winter” bankruptcies. In order to understand the impact of these bankruptcies as well as how they may impact your investments, it is important to understand what is currently known about these recent filings.

Three Arrows Capital Liquidation and Bankruptcy

Good afternoon.

Please find our summaries of the civil decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario for the week of July 4, 2022.