前言
《中华人民共和国企业破产法》（“《破产法》”）在公平清理债权债务、维护社会经济秩序等方面起到了重要的作用。但《破产法》下限制表决权的条款也因缺乏统一具体的适用标准——尤其是庭外程序表决效力的延伸、职工债权人和出资人表决权规范缺失等——而导致问题层出不穷，本文拟探其详并予建议。
一、破产表决权限制条款的适用问题
（一）禁反言规则在破产程序中的适用
《全国法院民商事审判工作会议纪要》（以下简称“《九民纪要》”）第一百一十五条认可了庭外重组协议在破产重整中的效力，但是在司法实践中仍然存在诸多问题。
第一，《九民纪要》第一百一十五条明确的是庭外重组与庭内重整程序的衔接。从文义解释角度，该条仅能适用于最终转化为破产重整的庭外重组程序。而庭内企业拯救程序不仅包括破产重整程序，同时也包括破产和解程序。庭外债务重组协议的效力能否延伸到破产和解程序中仍有待进一步明确。
Belgium had accumulated a significant legislative backlog within insolvency law. The European Directive 2019/1023 on restructuring had to be transposed into national law by the member states by 17 July 2022 at the latest. The Belgian government did not submit a draft bill to this effect until 20 March 2023. This draft has since been voted into law and will enter into force on 1 September 2023.
Several amendments are being made to (among others) Book XX of the Belgian Economic Law. The main amendments are briefly discussed below.
Key Takeaways
In welcome news for insolvency practitioners, the Supreme Court has limited the circumstances in which a dissatisfied bankrupt will have standing to challenge a trustee in bankruptcy's decisions or actions under section 303(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (Act), to those where there is likely to be a surplus in the bankruptcy estate (subject to only very limited exceptions). The Supreme Court acknowledged that, while this decision is about bankruptcy, the reasoning will also apply to challenges to liquidators' decisions under section 168(5) of the Act.
In welcome news for insolvency practitioners, the Supreme Court has limited the circumstances in which a dissatisfied bankrupt will have standing to challenge a trustee in bankruptcy's decisions or actions under section 303(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (Act), to those where there is likely to be a surplus in the bankruptcy estate (subject to only very limited exceptions). The Supreme Court acknowledged that, while this decision is about bankruptcy, the reasoning will also apply to challenges to liquidators' decisions under section 168(5) of the Act.
“Learn something new every day,” is a well-worn adage.
And it’s mostly true (I only question giving a literal meaning to the “every day” part).
Nevertheless, I’m embarrassed to acknowledge learning only recently of the existence of a noteworthy, bankruptcy-related statute: 28 U.S.C. § 959(a). Such statute reads in part (emphasis added):
When do amounts owed to a company constitute ‘circulating assets’ and how should they be distributed? This crucial question has not always been answered predictably in recent cases. The Court of Appeal’s decision in Resilient Investment Group Pty Ltd v Barnet and Hodgkinson as liquidators of Spitfire Corporation Limited (in liq) [2023] NSWCA 118 has provided a framework for navigating the relevant principles in the context of a priority dispute over R&D tax refunds.
Key takeaways
Dispute Resolution analysis: In a case where a bankruptcy was annulled on the basis that the alleged tax liability was ill-founded and misconceived, HMRC has been ordered to bear the OR’s and the trustees’ costs of the bankruptcy.
Re Adjei [2023] EWHC 1553 (Ch)
What are the practical implications of this case?
INTRODUCTION
Despite abundant case law on latent defects and what constitutes a provable claim, Quebec courts have rarely been called upon to decide an issue involving both concepts.
INTRODUCTION
Malgré la jurisprudence abondante tant en matière de vices cachés que sur la qualification de réclamation prouvable, les tribunaux québécois ont rarement eu l’opportunité de trancher une question qui réunit ces deux concepts.
The Insolvency Team at Gall continues to advise Century Sunshine Holdings Group Limited (Stock Code: 509) (the “Company”) on its debt restructuring and has successfully secured sanction of a Hong Kong scheme of arrangement (the “Hong Kong Scheme”) (as part of parallel schemes of arrangement in Hong Kong and Singapore).