On April 23, 2024, the American Bankruptcy Institute’s Subchapter V Task Force issued its Final Report.
This article is the fourth in a series summarizing and condensing the Task Force’s Final Report into “a nutshell.” The subject of this article is:
第1 はじめに
本シリーズの最後となる今回は、撤退の場合における 解散・清算・破産について説明したい。前回記載した通 り、買主が見つかれば、持分譲渡手続が最も迅速かつ簡 便であるが、買主が見つからない場合には、解散・清算 か破産を選択することになる。
中国法人の資産が負債よりも多く、すべての債務を支 払うことができる場合には解散・清算手続が可能であ る。他方で債務超過になっている場合には、破産手続に よることになる。バランスシート上の資産が負債より多 い場合であっても、実際には資産価値が毀損している場 合があるため、解散・清算が可能かどうか予めシミュレ ーションしておく必要がある。
第2 解散・清算について
１ 解散・清算の概要
The Grand Court has allowed the appointment of a Provisional Liquidator under section 104(3) of the Companies Act (2023 Revision) (the Act) for the purpose of facilitating a restructuring, rather than using the tailor-made Restructuring Officer provisions under section 91(B) of the Act.
Background
Insolventie
Heeft u te maken met insolventie? Lees hier welke stappen u moet nemen om uw zaken juridisch zo goed mogelijk op orde te hebben.
Ondernemen gaat helaas niet altijd over rozen. Kan uw onderneming bijvoorbeeld niet langer aan de financiële verplichtingen voldoen? Of kan een afnemer, huurder of klant financiële afspraken niet nakomen? Dan is er sprake van insolventie van uw onderneming of debiteur.
Introduction
In Arab v Pan, in the matter of Pan (No 3) [2024] FCA 563, the Federal Court of Australia addressed critical issues concerning the scope and compliance of summonses for production in bankruptcy, which will also impact corporate insolvency proceedings and such proceedings in other common law jurisdictions.
Deputy ICC Judge Curl KC’s judgment in Wade & Anor v Singh & Ors [2024] EWHC 1203 (Ch) follows applications by the liquidators of MSD Cash & Carry plc to enforce charging orders over a number of properties owned by the defendants, all of them members of the same family. The main protagonists were Mohinder Singh, Surjit Singh Deol and Raminder Kaur Deol, Mohinder being the father of Surjit, and Raminder, married to Surjit. The estate of a deceased family member was added as a party.
“Subchapter V relieves small business debtors from the absolute priority rule.”[Fn. 1]
- This was the excuse for a contorted grammatical interpretation, against the debtor, of a Subchapter V statute by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals gives the same excuse for the same contorted grammatical interpretation — like this:
Creditors want to recover as much money as they can from their debtors as quickly and painlessly as possible. When those debtors take steps to delay, defeat and hinder a creditor’s recovery, creditors can rely on the Fraudulent Preference Act, RSBC 1996, c. 164 (“FPA”) and the Fraudulent Conveyance Act, RSBC 1996, c. 163 (“FCA”) to set aside transactions that have that intention and effect. Generally, the FCA allows “creditors and others” to void dispositions of property designed to delay, hinder or defraud their claims.