Highlights
Long-anticipated U.S. Supreme Court decision in Purdue Pharma shakes up the scope of bankruptcy releases
Insurers get increased ability to participate in bankruptcy cases
Overpayment of bankruptcy fees is not refundable to Chapter 11 debtors
Sian Participation Corp (In Liquidation) (Appellant) v Halimeda International Ltd (Respondent) (Virgin Islands) [2024] UKPC 16
The financial thresholds of the Small Companies Administrative Rescue Procedure (SCARP) have been increased, meaning that SCARP is now a potential option for a larger number of companies in Ireland.
SCARP, which was introduced in 2021, aims to provide a cost-effective restructuring option for viable but insolvent companies. It is available to small and micro companies as defined in the Companies Act and is not an option for larger companies, which must use other restructuring mechanisms.
Court awards first security for costs order in respect of a challenge to a restructuring plan.
Key takeaways
The High Court has for the first time awarded security for costs in respect of a challenge to a proposed English restructuring plan.1
The Principal Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (“NCLAT”) in the case of Pooja Mehra v Nilesh Sharma (RP for Dream Procon Pvt. Ltd.)1, while examining the validity of the appellant homebuyers' claim, dismissed an appeal for condonation of delay of 552 (five hundred and fifty-two) days in filing a claim against the corporate debtor.
Here are a couple discharge-related bankruptcy questions I’ve heard of late, along with an answer.
Question 1. Why are individuals, but not corporations, eligible for a Chapter 7 discharge?
- §727(a)(1) says, “the court shall grant the debtor a discharge, unless—(1) the debtor is not an individual” (emphasis added).
Question 2. Why are individuals, but not corporations, subject to § 523(a) discharge exceptions in Chapter 11?
Le 27 juin 2024, la Cour suprême des États-Unis a publié une décision très attendue qu’elle a rendue dans l’affaire William K. Harrington, United States Trustee, Region 2, Petitioner v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al. (l’« affaire Purdue »).
Executive Summary:
In October 2020, the European Commission approved a recapitalisation measure of approximately €833 million, notified by Sweden and Denmark, in favour of SAS. This measure was adopted under the State aid COVID-19 Temporary framework.
Ryanair challenged the Commission decision and secured its annulment by the General Court of the EU in May 2023 (Case T-238/21). In late 2022, SAS entered a collective insolvency proceeding. Following the annulment of the 2020 decision, the Commission approved again in November 2023 the recapitalisation measure.
“债权平等原则”或“同债同权”是债权权利的一项基本原则，在破产程序中直接体现为概括清偿及同类债权公平清偿，在重整程序中则体现为破产法第82条所规定之重整程序下依照债权分类进行分组表决、第87条所规定之申请法院强裁应确保重整计划草案公平对待同一表决组成员等。然而在我国破产重整案件实践中，重整计划区分对待金融债权与非金融债权（或称经营性债权），进而导致同属同一债权组但在清偿安排中存在不同清偿安排的情况大量存在。就相关案例而言，金融债权人往往处于劣势一方，虽存在质疑重整计划违反债权平等原则的呼声，却因金融债权偏重合规维权路线等各方面考量，金融债权人较少切实采取行动来维护“同债同权”权益诉求。考虑到目前区别对待金融债权与非金融债权逐渐成为实践惯例，金融债权人的债权权利不断受到挑战，“同债同权”原则正陷入严峻困境。
基于此，有必要正视重整程序中同类债权差异化清偿问题，对其成因、影响加以体系化梳理并溯本求源。考虑到重整程序内同类债权不同清偿安排集中体现于普通债权一类,故本文聚焦重整程序中普通债权内的差异化清偿来展开分析。
一、普通债权差异化清偿的发端及表现