Highlights

The Supreme Court held Section 363(m) is only a “statutory limitation” to accessing appellate relief in disputed bankruptcy sales that requires parties to take certain procedural steps to be effective

The Supreme Court also addressed mootness arguments and held that as long as parties have a concrete interest, however small, in the outcome of an appeal, the appeal should remain alive

The ruling provides insight as to how the Supreme Court may tackle the controversial doctrine of “equitable mootness”

Talking about liability management exercises in Europe is interesting stuff for advisers, but we’ve not seen them occur with the frequency that many people thought a few months ago. Why is that?

In this blog article, we present the most important legal amendments in relation to the newly adopted Federal Act on Combating Abusive Bankruptcy.

In March 2022, the Swiss Parliament adopted the Federal Act on Combating Abusive Bankruptcy with the aim of preventing debtors from using bankruptcy proceedings to escape from their financial obligations to the detriment of their creditors or to engage in unfair competition with other companies. For this purpose, various laws and ordinances will be amended and the new law is expected to come into force on January 1, 2024.

“What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.” Romeo & Juliet – William Shakespeare

Company names and brand names, which may or may not be the same, along with the goodwill attributable to that name, is often a valuable company asset. However, even well-established brands are not immune to economic pressures, and you only have to take a walk down your local high street to witness the disappearance of many household names.

In my earlier posts I wrote about

Re-volt: battery sovereignty in the electric aircraft space - Implications for manufacturers and investors

and

Too many fish in the pond, too many electric birds not yet in the sky

ISDA argued the need for clarity in rules that govern the ownership of customer digital assets in the event of an intermediary’s insolvency.

In the recent case of MDSA Resources Sdn Bhd v Adrian Sia Koon Leng [2023] 3 CLJ 191 the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court decision in, among others, dismissing the Appellant’s application for sanction of a scheme of arrangement made pursuant to section 366(4) of the Companies Act 2016 (“CA 2016”).

Background Facts

The High Court has clarified the grounds for challenging a CVA for guarantee creditors.

Background

Introduction

The law is constantly developing to fit the ever-changing world. Most recently, with the digitalisation of the commercial landscape and the proliferation of cryptocurrencies, NFTs and metaverse-related businesses, the courts have had to apply or adapt the law to deal with novel situations. This was the case in Re Babel Holding Ltd and other matters [2023] SGHC 98, where the Singapore High Court had to apply restructuring and insolvency law in the context of a cryptocurrency-related business.

在终审法院最新颁布的 Re Guy Kwok-hung Lam[2023] HKCFA 9突破性裁决中，终审法院驳回了该案的上诉，并且在判词中就专属管辖权条款（EJC）是否对提交破产呈请有影响这一棘手问题作出裁决，平息了长期对于相关议题的争论。

简而言之，终审法院认可上诉法院大多数法官对于本案的观点，认为一般来说，如果呈请债务的基础争议受制于专属管辖权条款，除非有其他反面因素存在（例如债务人破产的风险将会影响第三方、债务人的呈请以几乎无意义的争议为基础，或者发生滥用法律程序的情况等）， 则法院应驳回该破产呈请。

终审法院在裁定中指出，当只有一名债权人提出破产呈请，而没有证据表明全体债权人都面临风险时，破产制度背后的公共政策因素的重要性则显着降低。

这一裁定反映了法院非常重视当事人自治的原则，以及当事人之间自由达成的协议。该判决将会对破产领域产生深远的影响，以及对处理清算及破产呈请中的仲裁条款产生涟漪效应。