香港法院首次认可并协助在内地启动并由内地法院指定破产管理人的破产程序案件是Re CEFC Shanghai International Group Limited [2020] HKCFI 167。随着破产重整制度的最新发展，香港法院在 Re HNA Group Co Limited [2021] HKCFI 2897案件中进一步加强跨境重整合作，夏利士法官亦首次认可内地的重整程序 (“裁决”)。

背景

在中国海南注册成立的海航集团有限公司 (“公司”) 是海航集团的控股公司。作为一家业务多元化的国内企业集团，海航集团投资组合涵盖航空、房地产、旅游和金融服务等领域。尽管它曾一度是世界上最活跃的投资集团之一，该集团在 2021 年因债务重整失败而宣布破产，陷入了危机。海南银行以公司资不抵债为由向海南省高级人民法院 (“海南法院”) 申请了破产重整。

根据《企业破产法》及最高人民法院的规定，海南法院于2021年2月10日颁发了重整命令 (“海南命令”)。管理人员，包括北京律师和海南省法制办公室的一名官员，被任命为清算管理人。同一命令规定公司集团的某些成员可以在管理人的监视权力下继续管理其资产和业务。

An emerging issue facing bankruptcy courts in subchapter V — small business reorganization cases[1] — is whether the 19 categories of debts listed in section 523(a) of the Bankruptcy Code are subject to discharge in a cramdown confirmation of a corporate debtor’s plan of reorganization.

The very first case that the Hong Kong Court recognised and granted assistance to bankruptcy administrators appointed by the Mainland Chinese courts in insolvency proceedings commenced in Mainland China in Re CEFC Shanghai International Group Limited [2020] HKCFI 167. Following the latest developments in the insolvency and restructuring regime, the Hong Kong Court has made further strides towards the enhanced cross-border restructuring cooperation in Re HNA Group Co Limited [2021] HKCFI 2897, in which the Honourable Mr.

Fraudulent transfers and actions to avoid them are second nature to both debtor and creditor attorneys. Although the exact requirements may vary amongst state and federal laws, a typical example includes a debtor that transfers its interest in some form of property to another party with the actual intent to prevent a creditor from collecting against that property. However, as unique as the state itself, a previously seldom-used loophole to fraudulent transfer law in Texas has jumped to the forefront of restructuring strategy—the Texas Two Step.

Unless the owner of a limited liability company elects to be treated as a corporation for tax purposes, the IRS will treat a single-member LLC as a “disregarded entity” for tax purposes. As a disregarded entity, an LLC’s assets, liabilities, income and deductions are reported as belonging to the owner for tax purposes. Markell Co. v.

A person in possession of a debtor’s property upon a bankruptcy filing now has more guidance from the Supreme Court as to the effect of the automatic stay. In City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton, 141 S. Ct. 585 (2021), handed down on January 14 of 2021, the Court was faced with the issue of whether the City of Chicago (the “City”) was liable for violation of the automatic stay for refusing to return vehicles it impounded pre-petition. Issuing a narrow decision under Section 362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Court held that it was not.

Maryland Legal Alert for Financial Services

The Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland recently proposed a new local rule in response to the U.S. Supreme Court decision that mere retention of bankruptcy estate property by a creditor post-petition does not amount to an exercise of control over estate property in violation of the automatic stay.

Each year amendments are made to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, which govern how bankruptcy cases are managed. The amendments address issues identified by an Advisory Committee made up of federal judges, bankruptcy attorneys, and others. The rule amendments are ultimately adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court and technically subject to Congressional disapproval.

The bankruptcy process is not only a tool for enterprises when they are insolvent to tackle a difficult situation but also a tool to find ways to settle debts for creditors. In the bankruptcy case, an important participant in the bankruptcy settlement process is the asset management officer(s) (“AMO”). So, who is AMO and what role does AMO play in the bankruptcy settlement process? To answer the above questions, BLawyers Vietnam would like to present the article below.

2016年破産倒産法は、目的やプロセスの異なる様々な法律が乱立していた従前と比較して、財務的困難な状況に陥った企業を救済する上で重要な役割を果たしています。破産倒産法の初期の成功要因は種々ありますが、インドの立法府が同法を適切に解釈し、適時に改正してきたことが主な要因として挙げられます。一定の成果を上げている破産倒産法ですが、会社法審判所（＝NCLT）および会社法上訴審判所（＝NCLAT）の機能およびプロセスの合理化には、未だ改善の余地があります。

本記事では、一見すると合理的に見える外部要因を考慮することで、債務不履行に陥った企業債務者が、法に基づく倒産処理手続に異議を唱えることができる根拠を意図せず広げてしまった可能性のある、Air Travel Enterprises India Ltd v. Union Bank of India & Ors.事件におけるNCLATの判決について考察しています。

Facts of the case