一、问题的提出

企业破产程序中的债权清偿顺位，除按照《企业破产法》第113条规定的一般清偿顺位进行分配外，对于现行特别部门法对应的特殊行业企业破产程序中存在的特殊债权类型，有例外的债权清偿顺位适用空间。涉船企业破产即是其中的一种特殊类型企业破产，本文所称的涉船企业破产为广义概念，包括不限于传统航运公司、单船公司、船舶海工企业、船舶建造与维保企业等等，对应的多是涉及船舶相关的争议解决根据民事案由规定应由海事法院专属管辖类型的适格主体，以上企业在本文统称为涉船企业。之所以涉船企业破产作为企业破产的特殊类型之一，盖其原因是由于涉船企业在实体上还受制于《海商法》等的约束、在程序上还受制于《海事诉讼特别程序法》等的约束。

涉船企业破产在债权类型和债权清偿顺位上，区别于一般企业破产的最大不同在于，除根据企业破产法规定的常见债权类型和顺位清偿外，《海商法》第21条和第22条规定的船舶优先权这一特殊权利类型在涉船企业破产中如何定性、如何定位、如何实现、如何规制的问题，至今仍然是一个争议不绝的问题，尚待明确、统一司法适用标准。

In our prior alert over the summer, we highlighted the Delaware Supreme Court’s decision in Stream TV Networks, Inc. v. SeeCubic, Inc., 279 A.3d 323, 329 (Del.

A Case Analysis of Doctors of Optimization Pty Ltd v MPA Engineering Pty Ltd (Subsidiary of Aquatec Maxon Group Ltd) [2023] QCA 219

Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands all have legislation that enables a company to present a scheme of arrangement to restructure its debts.

One of the defining features of a scheme of arrangement carried out under the relevant legislation in each jurisdiction is the ability to cram down dissenting creditors or members (or classes of them, as the case may be) if the requisite statutory majorities are satisfied and Court sanction of the proposed scheme is obtained.

In the realm of corporate governance, addressing misconduct within a company becomes particularly critical when an insolvency practitioner is appointed. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) sheds light on the intricacies of this scenario, outlining key points for stakeholders to be aware of and steps to take.

The Supreme Court’s judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and ors^[1] (“Sequana”) is a key decision on the law surrounding directors’ duties.

The High Court was required to consider the Supreme Court’s Sequana judgment in Hunt v Singh (below).

What did we learn from Sequana?

The Government has made a further extension until 31 December 2024 of one of the significant interim measures brought in by the Companies (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Covid-19) Act 2020Opens in new window (the "Covid Act") that permitted companies and co-operatives to hold annual, general and creditor meetings virtually.

We wrote earlier this year about the rise in insolvencies in the UK at the end of the summer, as persistent inflation, the pain of increasing interest rates, higher energy bills and the end of pandemic measures all took their toll.

In Lehman Brothers (PTG) Ltd (In Administration), the court considered whether to grant an order extending the administration of Lehman Brothers (PTG) Ltd (the “Company”) for a further two years and in doing so, provided some useful observations about when a court will grant an extension where a company is in distribution mode.

In a recent case, the Victorian Supreme Court said that an accountant ‘would know well that a statutory demand involves strict time frames for response and potentially very significant consequences for a company’. The accountant failed to take appropriate steps to inform the company of the statutory demand.

The statutory demand process

If a company does not comply with a statutory demand within 21 days of service, it is deemed to be insolvent and the creditor may proceed to wind up the company.