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.
摘 要
从法律性质上看，管理人在破产程序中可行使的撤销权分为两类，其一是根据企业破产法第31条规定，对于欺诈行为的撤销；其二是根据企业破产法第32条规定，对于在破产程序开始前六个月内个别清偿行为的撤销。出于平衡全体债权人与个别债权人之间的利益冲突，第32条以但书形式规定了“个别清偿使债务人财产受益的除外”之个别清偿撤销例外，以避免个别清偿撤销权的滥用。但管理人与债权人常常产生冲突，管理人往往通过撤销权诉讼在依法履行勤勉义务的同时谋求可分配财产的最大化，债权人则常以个别清偿撤销例外作为抗辩理由以避免交易回转。由于我国现行法律是通过“列举+兜底”的模式对个别清偿撤销例外进行规定，因此对于个别清偿撤销例外的边界并不清晰，需要通过梳理部分司法裁判观点，为厘清个别清偿撤销例外的边界提供一些思考。
关键词：
企业破产法 撤销权 管理人 破产程序
民法典 个别清偿
Modernisation of Luxembourg insolvency law
Luxembourg insolvency law has recently added new measures and proceedings designed to reorganise the assets or activities of a Luxembourg debtor.
The law of 7 August 2023 on business preservation and modernisation of bankruptcy law (Reorganisation Law) applies to certain Luxembourg commercial companies and came into force on 1 November 2023.
A Case Analysis of Doctors of Optimization Pty Ltd v MPA Engineering Pty Ltd (Subsidiary of Aquatec Maxon Group Ltd) [2023] QCA 219