Recently, in the case of Vishal Chelani & Ors. v. Debashis Nanda (Civil Appeal No. 3806 of 2023), India’s Supreme Court (SC) ruled on the interface of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) with the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA).

Factual background

1. Since 2017, Singapore has continually revamped and enhanced its corporate debt restructuring mechanisms. One of these enhancements is the introduction of the cross-class cramdown in Singapore’s Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (“IRDA”).

2. The cross-class cramdown is a powerful tool which is intended to prevent minority dissentients from blocking the passage of a scheme of arrangement. It can bind entire classes of dissenting creditors, as long as at least 1 class has voted in favour of the scheme, among other requirements.

はじめに

コロナ禍によって事業や財政状態が毀損した企業の再生が課題となる近時、実質的に債務超過状態にある上場会社をスポンサーが完全子会社化する（つまり既存株主の保有する株式を全てスポンサーが取得する）ことで、その経営再建を図る事例が増加しつつある。

こうした事例では、事業再生ADR手続等の準則型私的整理手続を通じた金融債権者（金融機関）を対象とする債務リストラクチャリング（債務免除による金融支援）によって過剰債務を解消するとともに、スポンサー支援を通じて資本を拡充し手元資金を確保した上で、対象会社の上場を廃止してスポンサーの完全子会社となり抜本的な再建プロセスが講じられることになる。

Restructuring plans under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 are a powerful tool for restructuring the debts of a company.

In 2016, the regulation concerning small and medium enterprises (“SMEs”) was initially introduced to aid SME owners in managing their debts through rehabilitation processes that safeguard the interests of both debtors and creditors.

El Tribunal Supremo recuerda que la prohibición de las sentencias condenatorias con reserva de liquidación debe interpretarse de manera flexible, atendiendo a los motivos justificados y razonables de cada caso en particular

Damos noticia de la sentencia del Tribunal Supremo núm. 1228/2023, de 14 de septiembre, que analiza una cuestión de enorme interés práctico, como son las sentencias de condena con reserva de liquidación.

Evolución de la normativa

This week’s TGIF summarises the Federal Court of Australia’s recent decision granting leave to proceed against a company despite the appointment of a small business restructuring (SBR) practitioner under Pt 5.3B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act).

Key takeaways

Here’s the latest opinion on a controversial question: In re Franco’s Paving LLC, Case No. 23-20069, Southern Texas Bankruptcy Court, (decided 10/5/2023; Doc. 74).

The Question & Answer

Voter apathy is a problem in Subchapter V cases. That apathy is in the form of creditors failing or refusing to vote on a Subchapter V plan. The In re Franco’s opinion addresses this apathy problem head-on.

In the recent decision of FamilyMart China Holding Co v Ting Chuan (Cayman Islands) Holding Corporation [2023] UKPC 33 (FamilyMart),[1] the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (the Board) found that, although an arbitral tribunal does not have the power to determine whether it is just and equitable to wind up a company nor to make a winding u

The ruling emphasises the need to flexibly interpret the prohibition in light of the reasonable grounds of each case

The Supreme Court's decision on the interpretation of the ban on sentences with a reservation of liquidation – numbered 1228/2023 and dated 14 September – has significant practical importance.

Regulatory developments

The regulation of sentences with a reservation of liquidation has significantly changed over the years.