This is the second in a two-part series article providing suggestions with respect to the recent discussion paper published by the MCA on 18 January 2023, proposing several major amendments to the IBC Code, 2016.
MCA’s recent discussion paper has proposed significant amendments to address several nagging issues in the working of the IBC. In the first part of this series, we highlighted some proposals that required a closer look. This piece discusses positive suggestions that could substantially improve the insolvency regime and enhance its efficiency.
Miles J’s judgment in Re Sova Capital Ltd [2023] EWHC 452 (Ch) will, like that of Jonathan Hilliard QC in Re Petropavlovsk Plc,be welcomed as a further example of the courts acting to assist insolvency practitioners selling assets in unusual circumstances.
On February 22, 2023, the United States Supreme Court (“the Supreme Court”) issued its Opinion in the matter of Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, No. 21-908, LEXIS 943 (Feb. 22, 2023), holding that per 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), a partnership member is not entitled to discharge a debt incurred by the fraud of another partnership member, regardless of the fact the innocent member had no knowledge of the fraud.
Background
Among the measures announced by the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance of Malaysia, Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim, during his 2023 Malaysia Budget Speech on 24 February 2023 was a proposal to amend the Insolvency Act 1967 (‘the Act’) to enable bankrupts to be automatically discharged quickly.
The Finance Minister added that pending the amendment of the Act, “minor cases” involving debts of less than RM50,000 that fulfil the criteria will be immediately discharged beginning 1 March 2023.
Although not directly concerned with directors' liabilities, the recent Supreme Court judgment in Stanford International Bank Ltd v HSBC Bank PLC provides further clarity on the circumstances in which a distressed or insolvent company may seek to make claims against its directors.
INTRODUCTION
The key aspects affecting directors' liabilities presented in the Supreme Court ruling are that:
职工债权是破产程序中常见的债权种类，其在我国破产制度下获得一定的优先保护，是破产企业、管辖法院、职工债权人、担保债权人及其他债权人等主体共同关注的焦点。但实践中不乏关于破产程序中职工债权范围、确认程序、清偿顺序等争议，有关争议处理效果将影响破产程序能否有效推进，关乎劳动关系妥善处理、职工权益保护、债权人利益平衡等目的的实现。鉴于此，本文拟在界定职工债权范围的基础上厘清职工债权在破产程序中的确认程序、清偿顺序、职工债权组分组与表决等问题，为司法实践提供有益参考。
一、职工债权范围
（一） 什么是职工债权？
我国现行法律规定未对职工债权进行明确的定义。实践中，“职工债权”通常又称为“劳动债权”，是职工对用人单位所享有的金钱之债，包括但不仅限于工资、奖金、报销款、应签未签劳动合同双倍工资、年休假补偿、解除或终止劳动合同的经济补偿等，在未涉及破产程序的情况下，职工享有的前述债权并无清偿顺序先后之分。
山东胜通集团股份有限公司（以下简称“胜通集团”）债券信息披露违法案是证监会2021年证监稽查20起典型违法案例之一，相关中介机构均被行政处罚，备受资本市场关注。日前，青岛市中级人民法院（下称“青岛中院”）对“胜通债”虚假陈述诉讼案作出一审判决。
本案系北京金融法院“大连机床”判例后债券虚假陈述诉讼领域的又一经典判例，一审判决诸多亮点值得点赞：（1）新《证券法》实施后全国法院首例认定债券虚假陈述造成的债券投资损失应为投资差额损失而非债券票面本息；（2）全国法院首例在债券虚假陈述案件中剔除系统风险和非系统风险所致债券投资损失；（3）充分考察债券价格、交易量变化，突破性地认定发行人“澄清公告”发布日为揭露日；（4）创新性地认定案涉债券市场并非有效市场，应以破产清偿金额来确定债券基准价。
该案判决对债券虚假陈述投资损失的认定，标志着我国债券虚假陈述损失的司法认定思路已开始理性回归“损害填平”的侵权责任本质。此外，该案判决对债券虚假陈述揭露日和基准价方面的认定，进一步丰富了人民法院审理债券虚假陈述专业性问题的实践，积累了宝贵经验，具有相当的前沿性和示范性。
An overview of Guernsey legislative and regulatory developments for the period 1 December 2022 to 28 February 2023 inclusive.
1 Corporate insolvency regime – update
The Companies (Guernsey) Law, 2008 (Insolvency) (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 (the Amendment Ordinance) finally came into force on 1 January 2023.
Introducción
Este mes las resoluciones reseñadas son menos y de menor relevancia que el mes pasado. Destacamos en todo caso el auto de homologación de uno de los primeros planes de restructuración aprobados tras la entrada en vigor de la nueva ley 16/2022 con una peculiar formación de clases donde muchas de ellas son clases unipersonales.
También destacamos un auto del Juzgado de lo Mercantil número 3 de Gijón que niega el embargo preventivo de los bienes de los administradores de la concursada por no apreciarse que vaya a existir un déficit concursal.
Over the last few years, several cases of defaulting real estate companies, including major players like, Amrapali, Jaypee Infratech and Supertech, have been stuck at various stages of insolvency proceedings under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as amended (“Code”).