Over the past decade, business rehabilitation proceedings in Thai courts have received a great deal of attention from debtors and creditors, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic. Business rehabilitation and bankruptcy proceedings have different objectives in court. As a result, Thai courts have a different perspective and set of criteria for considering and approving rehabilitation proceedings than for bankruptcy petitions. Both proceedings are outlined in the Bankruptcy Act B.E 2483 (1940). This article mainly discusses in-court business rehabilitation proceedings.

Restrukturierungen erfolgreich meistern durch Unterstützung eines Sanierungsmoderators.

Seit Inkrafttreten des Gesetzes über den Stabilisierungs- und Restrukturierungsrahmen für Unternehmen (StaRUG) zum 1. Januar 2021 steht Unternehmen die Restrukturierung mithilfe einer sogenannten Sanierungsmoderation offen. Es handelt sich dabei um eine Restrukturierungsmöglichkeit in einem formalisierten Verfahren außerhalb eines Insolvenzverfahrens.

The recent case of Re UKCloud Ltd (in liquidation) [2024] EWHC 1259 (Ch) (24 May 2024) looked at whether a charge over Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses was a fixed or floating charge. Notwithstanding that the charging document purported to create a fixed charge over such asset, the High Court concluded that it was a floating charge primarily because the control provisions in the charging document were not complied with or enforced in practice.

This question was considered in the recent case of Pindar where the judge concluded that an administration had been validly extended where the consent of one of the secured creditors (who had been paid) was not obtained.

Acquiring an insolvent corporation’s operations during a legal proceeding (rehabilitation, recovery, or debt settlement) presents numerous business opportunities. However, the holding of an insolvency auction, an integral part of the sale, may threaten these opportunities. During a sale, the insolvent corporation’s trustee (or the administrators) needs to maximize proceeds from the auction to pay creditors. Therefore, the trustee must consider offers from additional bidders before accepting a proposal.

The Employment (Collective Redundancies and Miscellaneous Provisions) and Companies (Amendment) Act 2024 (the Act) provides enhanced protections for employees in insolvency situations.

Responsible Person

1. はじめに

マレーシアでは、Companies (Amendment) Act 2024(以下｢本改正法｣といいます。)が、一部の条項を除き 2024 年 4 月 1 日に施行されています。本改正法は、マレーシア会社法(Companies Act 2016)に規定されているリストラクチャリング・企業再建手続の強化に焦点が当てられており、スキームオブアレンジメント (Scheme  of  Arrangement)、更生管財手続(Judicial  Management)及び会社任意整理(Corporate  Voluntary Arrangement)において手続の明確化や新制度が導入されています  。今回の改正は、シンガポールにおける 2017 年・2020 年の倒産法改正や、2020 年に行われた英国倒産法改正を参考にした部分も多く 、また債務者フレンドリーな改正が多いという点では、近年の国際的な倒産法制改正の潮流にも沿うものとなります。本稿では、マレーシア法改正による企業再建手続の変更点のうち実務的に重要なポイントについてご紹介します。

2. 保全命令制度の改正

Bankruptcy Law Reforms Committee (“BLRC”) was very clear while setting out the objectives of the new insolvency law for the country and speedy resolution/decision making in an insolvency situation was stated to be one of such foremost objectives. Fragmented laws governing an insolvency and lack of a cohesive framework governing the rights of various stakeholders during insolvency was identified as a primary reason for inefficiency of the pre-existing legal framework.

我们在前面的文章中介绍了航运企业跨境破产时与船舶扣押相关的法律问题（参见：视点 | 航运企业跨境破产与船舶扣押的冲突与协调——海事海商X破产系列文章（四），实际上司法实务中，国内法院在处理破产航运企业船舶扣押和拍卖时存在的争议同样不少，破产法律和海商事法律在对船舶的保全和执行问题上产生了交叉和冲突，给司法实践带来诸多困境。本文将结合我们承办的有关案例、其他典型案例和实务界的研究成果，对国内法院破产程序中的船舶扣押和拍卖问题进行讨论。

一、破产程序中船舶扣押与拍卖问题的司法实务样本

对于破产程序中船舶扣押与拍卖的问题，司法实践存在不同的处理模式，主要包括：

（一）因船舶优先权提起的诉讼，已进入拍卖程序的船舶，不中止执行

This writer recently encountered a case: a company (hereinafter referred to as “Company A”) with a large amount of registered capital, felling such large, registered capital was unnecessary, reduced it. In the process of reduction, the capital reduction information was only announced in local newspaper but not notified to every single creditor. One shareholder of Company A is a limited partnership (hereinafter referred to as “Partnership B”).