In the February 2024 edition of the Restructuring Department Bulletin, we highlight recent decisions and developments impacting the restructuring arena and share the latest news on the Paul, Weiss Restructuring Department.

In the February 2024 edition of the Restructuring Department Bulletin, we highlight recent decisions and developments impacting the restructuring arena and share the latest news on the Paul, Weiss Restructuring Department.

Shareholders of Austrian limited liability companies ("GmbH") often stipulate the right to purchase the shares of co-shareholders in certain events. These "share purchase rights" (Aufgriffsrechte) entitle the remaining shareholders to acquire the share of a shareholder when a contractually defined event (Aufgriffsfälle), like insolvency or the death of a shareholder, occurs. Often these rights are laid down in articles of association or a separate shareholders' agreement (Syndikatsvertrag). They are generally qualified as option rights.

Recently, insolvency law was fundamentally amended in terms of reorganization procedures. The tax legislation was subsequently adapted to these new procedures, at the same time changing the content of some important tax rules.

The most important change is that a waiver of debt within the framework of a reorganization agreement becomes less interesting from a tax point of view. You will find out exactly how this works in this article.

Debtors in non-U.S. bankruptcy or restructuring proceedings commonly seek to shield their U.S. assets from creditor collection efforts by seeking "recognition" of those proceedings in the United States in a case under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code. If a U.S. bankruptcy court recognizes the debtor's foreign proceeding, the Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay prevents creditor collection efforts, including the commencement or continuation of any U.S. litigation involving the debtor or its U.S. assets. A U.S.

2023 marked the highest annual number of corporate insolvencies since 1993, according to figures released by The Insolvency Service this week. While creditors’ voluntary liquidations remained by far the most commonly used process, 2023 saw increases across all processes tracked by the Insolvency Service.

On 29 January 2024, the Honourable Madam Justice Linda Chan made a winding-up order against China Evergrande Group (“Company”), setting into motion one of Hong Kong’s largest liquidations. Parties at the hearing were represented by three senior counsel and three juniors from DVC.

The Company is the ultimate investment holding company of Evergrande Real Estate Group, which is one of China’s largest and most indebted property developers.

In a 2021 ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit revived nearly 100 lawsuits seeking to recover fraudulent transfers made as part of the Madoff Ponzi scheme. In one of the latest chapters in that resurrected litigation, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held in Picard v. ABN AMRO Bank NV (In re Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC), 654 B.R. 224 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.

第１ はじめに

破産法６７条は、破産債権者が、破産手続開始時点で破産 者に債務を負担している場合の相殺を、原則、認めています。 相殺の担保的機能に対する期待を保護するためといわれま す。

他方、破産手続の基本原則である債権者平等を損う相殺 は禁じられています。たとえば破産法７１条１項２号は、「支払 不能になった後に契約によって負担する債務を専ら破産債権 をもってする相殺に供する目的で破産者の財産の処分を内 容とする契約を破産者との間で…締結することにより破産者 に対して債務を負担した場合であって、当該契約の締結の当 時、支払不能であったことを知っていたとき」は、相殺できない と定めています。これは、破産者と破産債権者との新たな取引 等で破産債権者に債務が発生すると、破産者が債権取得の 対価を代物弁済に供したのと同視できる場合があるため、支 払不能後の代物弁済が偏頗行為否認の対象となることとの 均衡を図るものといわれます。

Bankruptcy law has always been an interesting area to practice and study in China. Having nominally a “socialist market economy” as per its Constitution, China allows its private sector to operate relatively freely within regularly re-defined boundaries but has a strong state-owned sector that comprises about half of the entire economy. Adding constant concerns about social stability in the country of 1.4 billion people, the rules for companies going into insolvency must be a careful balance between capitalist “freedom to fail” principles and governmental control over the economy.

A helpful analysis of statute of limitations issues for fraudulent transfer claims brought by a bankruptcy trustee under § 544(a)&(b) is provided in a recent Circuit opinion.

• The opinion is Lewis v. Takacs (In re Stone Pine Investment Banking, LLC), Case No. 21-1423, U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals (decided 12/19/2023).

Overview