Bankruptcy is a formal process geared toward preserving stakeholder value. Often, the proceedings include negotiations between stakeholders that are arduous, time-consuming and expensive. Positioning the company for healthy and sustainable growth is often viewed as a postemergence priority, as companies naturally prioritize the near-term financial realities threatening their very survival.
Following are this week’s summaries of the Court of Appeal for Ontario for the week of November 14, 2022.
Crypto investors were dealt another blow on November 11 when FTX, the world’s second-largest cryptocurrency exchange, filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy relief in the District of Delaware, along with more than 130 related companies and affiliates. The bankruptcy was spawned by liquidity issues brought on by the sudden collapse in value of FTX’s crypto assets. Starting on November 6, customers simultaneously attempted to withdraw their funds and assets from the exchange, causing a situation akin to a classic bank run that led to an estimated $32 billion in value quickly evaporating.
The farming and agricultural industry has been dealing with financial challenges even before the pandemic. Those who were in financial jeopardy before the shutdown are forced to rely on taking on even more debt now just to survive. Currently, the sum of debt across the farming sector amounts to a staggering $496 billion according to the USDA.
Layoffs often accompany corporate bankruptcy, and employers should be aware of the legal obligations that impact mass layoffs and plant closures. Most notably, the federal WARN Act requires employers to notify the workforce of a mass layoff, a temporary shutdown, or a closure of all or part of a business.
Employers that fail to provide adequate notice could be on the hook for damages of back pay and benefits-related compensation per employee for each day the company violated the WARN Act (up to 60 days).
How did we get here?
The crypto markets were rocked again last week by the collapse and bankruptcy of FTX and Alameda Research. Within a few short days, Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) and his companies went from a stabilizing force for markets and acting as an industry leader to causing one of the greatest disruptions in digital asset market history.
Bankruptcy is a formal process geared toward preserving stakeholder value. Often, the proceedings include negotiations between stakeholders that are arduous, time-consuming and expensive. Positioning the company for healthy and sustainable growth is often viewed as a post- emergence priority, as companies naturally prioritize the near-term financial realities threatening their very survival.
以物抵债，指债权人与债务人之间存在金钱债务，双方约定将债务人财产作价交付债权人抵偿债务的行为。实践中，主要分为两种类型，包括当事人双方协商的以物抵债和民事强制执行程序中的以物抵债程序，本文仅就前种以物抵债类型进行探讨。
近年来，随着新冠疫情影响，经济形势发生变化，再加上政策调控等多重因素打击，导致地产行业遭遇寒冬，现金流频繁遭受考验。迫于资金回款压力，为了缓解僵局，地产企业推出“工抵房”“内部房”等房源以期减轻对外负债或实现现金回流。其中，“工抵房”也被称为工程抵款房，是开发商用于给工程方抵扣工程款的一种方式，也是大众所俗称以物抵债的一种常见形式。虽然，工程方的需求是现金而并非房屋，但目前经济形势下，工程方面临开发商无款支付的现实局面，只能无奈被迫接受“工抵房”。尽管“工抵房”的出现使得开发商不再面临房子无路销售的难题，同时解决了部分应付款项；工程方能获得部分“工抵房”以解决工程资金被长期拖欠的难题；购房者可以更低价格买到“工抵房”从而降低购房成本，这一循环链看似多赢，实则隐藏大量法律风险。本文将从“工抵房”的角度，以工抵债权人的视角，对以物抵债的性质、模式、法律风险等维度进行分析，以期对实践和后续研究有所贡献。
一、以物抵债协议的性质
“以房抵债”安排，原常见于缓解开发商在开发过程中少量资金短缺的问题，但部分房地产企业逐渐将其演化作为平衡资金需求的工具，签订大量的“以房抵债”协议，在出现现金流危机、甚至濒临破产的情况下，无力偿还欠款，也无力建完房屋交付债权人，使得“以房抵债”的实现问题变得愈加尖锐。而在理论和实践中，“以房抵债”也存在较多的争议，即便表面上均具备相似的特征，由于个案事实细微的差别，或是裁判观点不同，导致不同的判决结果。故此，本文拟就“以房抵债”在破产程序中可能面临的不同效果进行梳理及探讨。
一、关于“以房抵债”的法律关系的厘清
实践中关于“以房抵债”存在着各种各样的约定，归纳起来，最为常见的为“以物抵债”类型的安排：通常发生在债务到期后（部分案件中可能发生在债务到期前），即以债务人或他人持有的房屋作为抵偿债务的“物”，通过折价转让给债权人的形式，实现债务清偿的目的。该种抵偿改变了原债权金钱给付的方式，在理论上，可称为“他种给付型以房抵债”。
The Second Circuit released a new decision this week in Sears regarding bankruptcy valuation methodologies and the entitlement of second lien debt holders to adequate protection. Among other interesting aspects of the ruling, the Second Circuit affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s adoption of a "net orderly liquidation value" for the debtors’ inventory as of the petition date (rather than looking to the actual values obtained by the debtors during the case).