ON 18 OCTOBER 2022, THE LUXEMBOURG PARLIAMENT PASSED A LAW (THE “LAW”) INTRODUCING AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING BY WHICH A COMPANY MAY BE DISSOLVED WITHOUT LIQUIDATION (PROCÉDURE DE DISSOLUTION ADMINISTRATIVE SANS LIQUIDATION) (THE “ADMINISTRATIVE DISSOLUTION PROCEEDING”) AT THE REQUEST OF THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (PROCUREUR D’ETAT). THE LAW IS THE FIRST PART OF THE LARGEST-EVER REFORM TO MODERNISE LUXEMBOURG BANKRUPTCY LAW.

Objective of the Administrative Dissolution Proceeding

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (“SC”) has recently handed down a decision in the case of BTI v Sequana, dealing with the powers and duties of company directors. The appeal was expected to be of considerable importance.

This alert is especially relevant to companies, and directors of companies, in financial distress, as well as creditors and insolvency practitioners.

Key Takeaways

On 5 October 2022, the UK Supreme Court delivered its judgment in the case of BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA & Ors [2022] UKSC 25. This judgment arose from an appeal brought by BTI 2014 LLC against a decision of the English Court of Appeal in 2019.

The Supreme Court has handed down its long-awaited judgment, which as Lord Reed noted, considered issues that go to the heart of our understanding of company law and are of considerable practical importance to the management of companies.

Background to the Appeal

Settling any remaining uncertainty in how professionals’ hourly rates will be considered for approval in bankruptcy courts in the Eastern District of Virginia, on October 18, the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia approved the professional fee applications in the Nordic Aviation bankruptcy cases, including the rates of each of the professionals as appropriate market rates. In particular, the Bankruptcy Court noted that, “[m]uch ink has since been spilled differentiating so-called ‘local’ rates from ‘national’ rates. The distinction is much ado about nothing.

On October 14, 2022, the Fifth Circuit issued its decision in Ultra Petroleum, granting favorable outcomes to “unimpaired” creditors that challenged the company’s plan of reorganization and argued for payment (i) of a ~$200 million make-whole and (ii) post-petition interest at the contractual rate, not the Federal Judgment Rate. At issue on appeal was the Chapter 11 plan proposed by the “massively solvent” debtors—Ultra Petroleum Corp. (HoldCo) and its affiliates, including subsidiary Ultra Resources, Inc.

The costs regime in insolvency litigation is outdated and not fit for purpose, especially when it comes to the clawback claims designed to allow officeholders to restore the insolvent estate when assets have been deliberately dissipated. Many such claims can become uneconomical to run, especially where recipients of dissipated assets have no desire to preserve them but every incentive to diminish them with their own costs. Often a sale or assignment is the last resort to seek justice against wrongdoers in such situations.

The Second Circuit released a new decision this week in Sears regarding bankruptcy valuation methodologies and the entitlement of second lien debt holders to adequate protection. Among other interesting aspects of the ruling, the Second Circuit affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s adoption of a "net orderly liquidation value" for the debtors’ inventory as of the petition date (rather than looking to the actual values obtained by the debtors during the case).

The Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”) has amended the regulatory framework (“Framework”) for asset reconstruction companies (“ARCs”) on October 11, 2022. Since inception, ARCs have grown in number and size, however their potential for resolving stressed assets is yet to be realised. Accordingly, based on the recommendation of a committee, RBI has reviewed the existing regulatory regime applicable to ARCs and put forth the Framework.

“以房抵债”安排，原常见于缓解开发商在开发过程中少量资金短缺的问题，但部分房地产企业逐渐将其演化作为平衡资金需求的工具，签订大量的“以房抵债”协议，在出现现金流危机、甚至濒临破产的情况下，无力偿还欠款，也无力建完房屋交付债权人，使得“以房抵债”的实现问题变得愈加尖锐。而在理论和实践中，“以房抵债”也存在较多的争议，即便表面上均具备相似的特征，由于个案事实细微的差别，或是裁判观点不同，导致不同的判决结果。故此，本文拟就“以房抵债”在破产程序中可能面临的不同效果进行梳理及探讨。

一、关于“以房抵债”的法律关系的厘清

实践中关于“以房抵债”存在着各种各样的约定，归纳起来，最为常见的为“以物抵债”类型的安排：通常发生在债务到期后（部分案件中可能发生在债务到期前），即以债务人或他人持有的房屋作为抵偿债务的“物”，通过折价转让给债权人的形式，实现债务清偿的目的。该种抵偿改变了原债权金钱给付的方式，在理论上，可称为“他种给付型以房抵债”。