Chapter 11 bankruptcy has long been thought of as anathema to commercial real estate (CRE) lenders. This is due to the debtor-friendly bankruptcy forum, particularly with respect to (i) the up to 18 month exclusivity period during which only the debtor could propose a plan of reorganization and (ii) threats of a "cram-down" plan used to lever concessions from lenders. These provisions can be, and often were, abused by debtors with no real rehabilitative intent using bankruptcy only as a leverage tool.
High Court upholds decision that separate entities of foreign states may be immune from being wound up in Australia
Key takeouts
Under the framework of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI), an asset reconstruction company (ARC) has wide powers to revive a company facing financial difficulties. It can use securitisation, reconstruction and recovery for quick resolution of distressed debt. As an alternative, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), allows ARCs with access to a formal resolution process, which has the advantage of the borrower emerging debt-free with a clean slate.
On April 23, 2024, the American Bankruptcy Institute’s Subchapter V Task Force issued its Final Report.
This article is the eighth in a series summarizing and condensing the Task Force’s Final Report into “a nutshell.” The subject of this article is:
- whether the Subchapter V trustee or other party in interest should be allowed to file a plan after debtor’s removal from possession.[Fn. 1]
Recommendation
On Wednesday 19 June 2024, the Irish Corporate Enforcement Authority ("CEA") published its first-ever annual report. The Annual Report covers the 18-month period from July 2022 (when it replaced and assumed the responsibilities of the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement) to 31 December 2023.
Supervision of corporate insolvency
The CEA has a statutory role in supervising the liquidation of insolvent companies and taking enforcement actions in respect of struck off insolvent companies.
The Privy Council has recently upheld a BVI judgment refusing stay of a winding up petition in favour of arbitration. The recent Sian Participation Corp (In Liquidation) v Halimeda International Ltd1 Privy Council decision provides much needed clarity on the exercise of the Court’s discretion to wind up a company where the debt is not disputed on genuine and substantial grounds and is subject to an arbitration clause.
On June 20, 2024, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas (the “Court”) issued a memorandum decision and order in the adversary proceeding involving Robertshaw US Holding Corp.
在 Sian Participation v. Halimeda International [2024] UKPC 16一案中，布里格斯勋爵（Lord Briggs）和夏宝伦勋爵（Lord Hamblen）代表委员会作出判决，认可了关于清盘呈请的传统做法。两位法官确认，即使产生债务的合同包含仲裁条款，亦不能削弱债务人证明债务确实存在实质性争议的责任（下称“可审理问题标准”）。
该案中，委员会的观点与香港高等法院暂委法官王鸣峰资深大律师（William Wong SC）在 Dayang v. Asia Master Logistics [2020] 2 HKLRD 423 一案中的观点（见判词第82、98段）如出一辙，可归纳如下：
In Hungary, many creditors choose liquidation procedure instead of classic court procedures (i.e. order for payment and civil litigation) in order to recover their claims. A recent decision has once again demonstrated that liquidation proceedings can in many cases be a simpler solution for creditors to recover their claims. In this article following an introduction to the relevant rules of the liquidation procedure we will examine this decision.
1. Liquidation procedure in nutshell
Die §§ 89 – 91 StaRUG: Eigenständiger Regelungsinhalt oder lediglich klarstellender Charakter? Wir klären auf!
Die EU-Richtlinie über Restrukturierung und Insolvenz (Restrukturierungsrichtlinie) enthält in Kapitel 4 (Art. 17, 18) besondere Vorschriften zur Insolvenzanfechtung. Diese hat der deutsche Gesetzgeber mit den §§ 89 – 91 StaRUG in nationales Recht umgesetzt. Daher lohnt sich ein vertiefter Blick auf diese Vorschriften.
Richtliniengeber möchte Finanzierungen und Zwischenfinanzierungen schützen