Every now and then, a bankruptcy ruling elicits an “Oh, no!” response from just about everyone.
And then, subsequent case law starts rejecting and/or chipping-away at that “On, no!” ruling.
We have such an “Oh, no!” situation going on right now on a Subchapter V debt-limit issue.
New Rejecting/Chipping-Away Opinion
We have previously blogged about the section 546(e) defense to a trustee’s avoidance powers under the Bankruptcy Code. A trustee has broad powers to set aside certain transfers made by debtors before bankruptcy. See 11 U.S.C. §§ 544, 547, 548. Section 546(e), however, bars avoiding certain transfers, including a “settlement payment . . . made by or to (or for the benefit of) . . . a financial institution [or] a transfer made by or to (or for the benefit of) a . . . financial institution . . . in connection with a securities contract.” 11 U.S.C. § 546(e).
“金融机构债权人委员会”（简称“金融债委会”）是协商性、自律性、临时性组织，按照市场化、法治化、公平公正、分类施策的原则，依法维护金融机构作为债权人的合法权益。金融债委会可以按照“一企一策”的方针，集体研究增加融资、稳定融资、减少融资、重组等措施，确保债权金融机构形成合力，稳妥化解风险。
在我国经济处于下行期的大环境之下，各地大型民营企业频繁陷入债务危机，越来越多困境企业在庭外债务重组中使用金融债委会机制作为企业和债权人之间沟通的“黏合剂”、债务危机化解的“催化剂”以及与庭内司法重整或和解程序衔接的“融合剂”，由金融债委会主导庭外债务重组程序有效推进，如东旭集团等。本文意在对当前金融债委会机制的制度背景、发展现状、实践中的运行机制、存在的问题及解决方案等方面进行深入分析。
一、金融债委会国内外发展概况及制度优势
（一）国内外金融债委会制度发展概况
1、国外金融债委会制度发展概况
The Supreme Court of India (Supreme Court) in State Tax Officer v Rainbow Papers Limited (Rainbow Papers Judgment) held that a statutory authority, in whose favor a charge is created under a statute, would be treated as a secured creditor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (IBC). The Rainbow Papers Judgment was distinguished by the Supreme Court in Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited v Raman Ispat Private Limited2 (PVVNL Judgment).
Following our previous article on the Canadian case of Qualex-Landmark Towers Inc v 12-10 Capital Corp, there has been an application to appeal to Alberta’s highest court with several intervener applications. Beale & Co provides an update and further commentary on the next chapter of this environmental case.
Daniel Chow and I had the honor of being invited to engage in and deliver a presentation at a dynamic seminar hosted by the Taxation Institute of Hong Kong. The seminar attendees primarily consisted of skilled tax practitioners and accountants in Hong Kong. During the discussion, we provided the participants with an overview of restructuring and insolvency, along with the most recent market advancements.
Here are a few key topics we addressed during the seminar:
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。
A Case Analysis of Official Trustee in Bankruptcy v Kent (No 2) [2023] FCA 1396
In Official Trustee in Bankruptcy v Kent [2023] FCA 1211 (“Principal Case“), the Court found that a bankrupt’s right to claim compensation through the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (“AFCA”) is personal to the bankrupt and that right cannot be assigned to the Trustee.
The Federal Court decision of Copeland in his capacity as liquidator of Skyworkers Pty limited (in Liquidation) (Skyworkers) v Murace [2023] FCA 14 stresses the importance of liquidators adequately particularising claims in a Statement of Claim (SOC). In particular, the liquidator in this case was unable to identify the specific dates that the debts were incurred and how these debts arose.