In Hafen v. Adams (In re Hafen), 616 B.R. 570 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. 2020), a bankruptcy appellate panel from the Tenth Circuit ("BAP") held that the bankruptcy court is the only court with subject-matter jurisdiction to decide whether a claim or cause of action is property of a debtors' bankruptcy estate. As a consequence, the BAP held that the bankruptcy court abused its discretion by permitting a state court to determine whether creditors had "standing" to sue third-party recipients of allegedly fraudulent transfers.
The ability of a bankruptcy trustee or chapter 11 debtor-in-possession ("DIP") to obtain credit or financing during the course of a bankruptcy case is often crucial to the debtor's prospects for either maintaining operations pending the development of a confirmable plan of reorganization or facilitating an orderly liquidation designed to maximize asset values for the benefit of all stakeholders. In a chapter 11 case, financing (and/or cash infusions through recapitalization) also is often a key component of the reorganized debtor's ability to operate post-bankruptcy.
The COVID-19 pandemic has brought disruption and economic hardship to several businesses around the globe. In Brazil, the effects of lockdown and restriction measures by the Governments have caused numerous companies to file for bankruptcy or judicial reorganisation, the latter being the legal restructuring instrument which aims to assist companies to continue their activities and avoid becoming bankrupt.
Relevant Aspects of the Judicial Reorganisation process
In re Affordable Auto Repair, Inc., No. 6:19bk18367MW, 2020 Bankr. LEXIS 2366 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2020).
Case Snapshot
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Georgia ruled in In re Serendipity Labs, Inc., 620 B.R. 679 (Bankr. N.D. Ga.
The Ontario Court of Appeal, in 7636156 Canada Inc. (Re), 2020 ONCA 681 (“7636156”), recently affirmed the autonomy of documentary letters of credit as valid security for the obligations of a tenant under a commercial lease when that lease is disclaimed by the tenant or the tenant’s trustee in bankruptcy.
引言：近期某集团破产清算案中，关于债务人与境外基金债权人之间因“维好协议”引发的纠纷事项，上海金融法院作出裁定，对境外债权人在香港特别行政区取得的对该债务人的胜诉判决予以认可，鉴此该境外债权人的债权有望在破产程序中获得确认。而其他破产案件中，管理人对境外投资人基于“维好协议”的债权作出不予确认的决定。由此，关于“维好协议”项下的债权人应如何主张权利、在“维好提供方”破产的情况下可否享有破产债权人地位并参与破产程序等问题众说纷纭。为此，本文将从“维好协议”的性质入手，在境内“维好提供方”破产语境下，阐述“维好协议”项下债权人可以主张权利的路径，并分析各救济途径在司法实践中的可行性。
一、“维好协议”的性质分析
（一）何谓“维好协议”
As lenders prepare for a world with an increased risk of borrower failures, liquidations, and bankruptcies, many have begun focusing on requiring that borrowers form special purpose entities (“SPEs”) to mitigate against those risks. In this publication, we explore how recent case law has viewed the formation and use of SPEs and which structures have been more effective than others.
Current State of the Law Regarding Bankruptcy Remote Entities
As interest rates remain relatively low and financial liquidity levels remain high, investors with a higher risk appetite will continue to find increased opportunities with distressed assets. In Brazil, these have already reinvigorated the trend of M&As in Q3 of 2020.
A revigorated trend