“Sophisticated financial titans engaged in a winner-take-all battle. There was a winner and a loser. Such an outcome was not only foreseeable, it is the only correct result. The risk of loss is a check on unrestrained behavior.”

The events in the last few years have had significant and lasting impacts on business in general and restructuring in particular, with the latter referring to the various options available for firms experiencing difficulties. European economies, hit by both the upheavals caused by the health crisis and geopolitical tensions, have also been a

The economic clouds continue to darken alongside the incessant rainstorms outside, and people are paying closer attention to the forecasts to understand what to do to keep dry.

As interest rates continue to rise, and many commentators describe a challenging economic outlook amid an extending inflationary cycle, one only has to look at the recent company collapses in the construction sector to see the struggle that businesses are facing. Times are, and certainly will be, tough for a large number of people, and there are clearly sectors in distress.

In Denaxe Limited v Cooper & Rubin, the Court of Appeal has recently considered the important issue of immunity from suit against a party who has previously sought the Court’s approval for a particular course of action. This is commonly utilised by trustees (under CPR 64) and insolvency practitioners (for example under CPR 69 and Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986) when faced with difficult questions concerning entitlements and distributions to different classes of beneficiary or creditor.

1. はじめに

マレーシアにおける債権回収を検討するに際しては、企業倒産手続の基本的理解が重要となります。マレーシアの倒産法は、旧宗主国である英国の法律に由来していますが、近年では英国がより債務者フレンドリーな倒産法制度を取り入れるなど 、マレーシアと英国の倒産法制度の差異も顕著となってきています。本稿では、マレーシアにおける企業倒産手続を概説しつつ、債 権回収上の留意点について考察します。

2. マレーシアにおける企業倒産手続について

マレーシアの企業倒産手続には、主に①清算手続(Liquidation 又は Winding up)、②会社任意整理(Corporate Voluntary Arrangement)、③スキームオブアレンジメント(Scheme of Arrangement)、④更生管財手続(Judicial Management)及び⑤財産管理手続(Receivership)があります。

Sometimes we blog about cases with unusual fact patterns. The cases don’t stand for any overriding legal principle. They might not have application beyond the parties to them. But they can make for good reading, giving insight into how judges analyze and rule on the issues at stake.

A recent decision in the District of Delaware is such a case. In re Mabvax Therapeutics Holdings, Inc., No. 19-10603, 2023 Bankr. LEXIS 1557 (Bankr. D. Del. June 15, 2023).

On June 27, 2023, the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the “Committee”) in the BlockFi Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization case filed an Objection to the company’s Plan and essentially requested that the company be liquidated. The Official Committee is made up largely of 600,000 individual customers of BlockFi.

Contrasting opinions from any court, issued a month apart, are always instructive.

And we have a new such thing—from the U.S. Supreme Court, no less, and from May and June of this year. The contrast is on this subject: whether sovereign immunities of Puerto Rico and of a federally recognized tribe are abrogated in bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy courts possess broad discretion to dismiss chapter 11 bankruptcy cases for “cause” under Section 1112(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. While the Bankruptcy Code enumerates a long (though non-exhaustive) list of instances when a case may clearly be dismissed for cause, courts generally agree that cases may also be dismissed under Section 1112(b) for the classic catch-all reason—if they are filed in “bad faith.”

The Court of Appeal (Singh, Males, and Popplewell LJJ) has delivered an important judgment on the interpretation of s.423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 in Invest Bank PSC v El-Husseini[2023] EWCA Civ 555.