On 2 March 2023 the Supreme Court of Victoria published its reasons in the matter of Atlas Gaming Holdings Pty Ltd [2023] VSC 91 (the Atlas case) in which Gadens acted on behalf of the Liquidator of four companies seeking a pooling order pursuant to section 579E of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act). There have been very few judgments on section 579E which was introduced in 2007 by the Corporations Amendment (Insolvency) Act 2007 (Cth) Sch 1 items 133ff and operative from 31 December 2007.

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

At the end of February 2023, the High Court sanctioned seven restructuring plans for companies in the Lifeways group. Lifeways is a group providing supported living and specialist residential, support and care services at properties throughout the UK.

The case raised several interesting aspects, particularly in relation to the conduct of creditor meetings for a restructuring plan where cross class cram down is sought, and whether there is a read across from scheme case law on this issue.

The Part 26A Restructuring Plan (“RP”) is a relatively new addition to the English insolvency regime; despite this, the flexibility it provides to both distressed companies and their creditors has made it an important and attractive option. The recent administration of GoodBox Co Labs Limited (“GoodBox”) only further highlights this flexibility, providing ground-breaking precedent for creditor‑led RPs and the necessity of company consent.

KARL CLOWRY, SEÁN MCGUINNESS, AND AZIZ ABDUL LOOK TO THE LESSONS FOR SHAREHOLDERS, CREDITORS AND ADMINISTRATORS FROM THE FIRST CREDITOR LED RESTRUCTURING PLAN.

The Good Box Co Labs Limited (in Administration) case demonstrates once more the viability of the process for the mid-market and continues a trend of RPs being used by a determined creditor / shareholder constituency to rescue an equity investment within an existing corporate group. In short, the mid-market RP is still a highly situational, albeit flexible, tool."

The Supreme Court handed down its judgment on the case of Rakusen v Jepsen on 1 March 2023, deciding that rent repayment orders cannot be made against superior landlords.

The case considered whether rent repayment orders (RROs) under the Housing and Planning Act 2016, could be made against immediate landlords only, or whether superior landlords are also liable. 

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。