Since their introduction to the English insolvency regime in 2020, court sanctioned restructuring plans under Part 26A of the UK Companies Act 2006 – a new, more-flexible alternative to traditional UK restructuring tools – which take some of their DNA from U.S. Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings (in particular, the ‘cross class cram down’ mechanism), have been a hot topic for insolvency lawyers.

German insolvency law is governed by a comprehensive Insolvency Code that entered into force on 1 January 1999 and has since then regularly been subject to amendments from time to time. There is only one primary uniform insolvency procedure that applies to both individuals and companies. In the following, we focus on companies. Insolvency proceedings can be initiated against any natural or legal person, excluding certain legal persons organized under public law, such as the German Federation or the German states.

Two recent judgments from different Australian courts have considered circumstances in which insolvency disputes can (or cannot) be arbitrated in accordance with pre-existing arbitration agreements. In particular, the decisions address the following two key issues:

• when certain insolvency claims can be arbitrated; and
• when a third party can participate in arbitral proceedings either claiming or defending ‘through or under’ a party to the arbitration agreement.

Key takeaways

In Re Guy Kwok-Hung Lam v. Tor Asia Credit Master Fund LP [2023] HKCFA 9, the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) handed down a decision in an appeal concerning the appropriate exercise, by the Court of First Instance (CFI), of the discretion to decline the exercise of jurisdiction in bankruptcy and insolvency matters on forum grounds, specifically, where the underlying dispute regarding the petition debt is the subject of an exclusive jurisdiction clause (EJC).

Background

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a consumer’s lawsuit against a debt collector, holding that the consumer lacked Article III standing to sue because his allegations of ʺconfusion” and “alarm” were not sufficiently concrete to result in an injury in fact.

近年来，金融机构债权人委员会（以下称“金融债委会”）越来越多地参与到大型、知名企业的金融债务重组案例中。实践中，多数金融债委会都会以协议或决定的方式确立 “一致行动原则”。这一原则对金融机构债权人的影响如何？金融机构债权人又当如何应对？本文中，笔者将对这一原则进行解读和分析，并基于笔者的执业经验提出相应建议。

一、金融债委会确立“一致行动原则”的动机

根据银保监会等四部门联合发布的《关于印发金融机构债权人委员会工作规程的通知》（银保监发〔2020〕57号，以下简称《工作规程》），金融债委会系庭外金融债务重组过程中设立的协商性、自律性、临时性组织，其成员主要为金融机构。与破产阶段的债权人委员会的职权由《企业破产法》直接作出规定不同，金融债委会的组织架构、议事规则和工作流程，以及各成员机构权利义务、成员机构退出机制、解散程序等事项均约定于当事人自愿签署的债权人协议中。

设立金融债委会的目的是为金融机构债权人搭建集体协商、共同决策、一致行动的工作平台，避免在企业债务危机爆发后个别金融机构单独“出逃”引起“踩踏”，为企业债务危机的化解争取时间和空间。因此，金融债委会成员有动力明确并遵守“一致行动原则”。

Ben Gold, partner in RPC’s professional and financial risk team, explains how a recent Supreme Court case (BTI v Sequana) confirms company directors owe a duty to creditors if the company nears balance sheet or cash flow insolvency.

This ‘creditor duty’ is of increasing significance as insolvencies rise.

The Bankruptcy and Diligence (Scotland) Bill proposes to introduce measures designed to help those in financial difficulty and suffering with mental health problems to get some much needed "breathing space".

The English Court has refused to sanction two separate restructuring plans proposed by Nasmyth Group Limited (Nasmyth) and The Great Annual Savings Company Ltd (GAS). Both companies sought to use Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 to “cram down” His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC). Whilst neither decision is the first time that Part 26A has been used in this way¹, they are the first to involve any active participation by HMRC in the sanction hearing².

A recent amendment to the Goods and Services Tax Act 1985 has clarified that voluntary administrators are personally liable for the GST of companies under their administration.