Lately, the global economic market has been tumultuousMajor changes such as inflation and interest rate hikes may cause individuals or legal entities to fall into the abyss of insolvency. According to the Consumer Debt Clearance Statute and the Bankruptcy Act, if a debtor is unable to repay his/her debts, he/she may clear his/her debts according to the rehabilitation or liquidation process set out by the Consumer Debt ClearanceStatute, or file an application for bankruptcy in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act. Both are procedures to help debtors clear their debts.
In this alert, we review an important UK Supreme Court decision, which confirms that the fiduciary duties of directors to act in good faith in the interests of the company should, where insolvency[1] is imminent or insolvent liquidation or administration is probable, be interpreted as including the interests of its creditors.
近來全球經濟市場瞬息萬變，通貨膨脹、利息調升等重大變動，可能造成個人或法人步入不能清償債務的萬丈深淵。按消費者債務清理條例、破產法之規定，債務人若有不能清償債務之情形時，得依消費者債務清理條例聲請更生、清算，或依破產法聲請破產，二者都是協助債務人清理債務之程序，但從司法案件統計上，准駁情形卻有相當大的差異。
依司法院民國110年統計年報有關「地方法院消債聲請事件終結情形」之統計數字，自101年起至110年止聲請更生事件總計為33,997件，裁准更生之案件總計為24,699件（裁准比率為72.7％）；聲請清算事件總計為9,995件，裁定開始清算之案件總計為7,984件（裁准比率為79.9％）。
然而，有關「地方法院民事破產事件終結情形」同期間之統計數字，聲請破產事件總計僅有2,013件，而宣告破產之案件更只有287件（裁准比率為14.3％）。二者同為清理債務之程序，同樣期待債務人能夠透過債務清理程序重獲新生，何以破產事件不論是案件數量或裁准比率，均大幅低於更生或清算事件？
這些聲請破產之個人或法人，在破產程序中，究竟是因為什麼原因而被法院駁回聲請？或許可以從法院駁回破產聲請的理由，探知我國破產程序何以難如登天。
Már Magyarországon is elindítható a szerkezetátalakítási eljárás, amelynek célja az életképes vállalkozások nehézségeinek kezelése és a fizetésképtelenség megelőzése. A DLA Piper Hungary szakmai eseményén jogi és gazdasági oldalról egyaránt megvilágították a szakértők az új eljárás részleteit és előnyeit, valamint arra is kitértek, hogy a megváltozott külső körülmények milyen iparági szereplőket állítottak igazán komoly kihívások elé.
In previous alerts in this series, we have discussed how transformative DAOs can be for corporate formation and tax status. We have discussed how determining a DAO’s classification—whether a DAO is a legal entity and, if so, what type—is vital before any legal proceeding.
The Privy Council has handed down judgment in two appeals (ETJL v Halabi; ITGL v Fort Trustees [2022] UKPC 36) concerning the nature and scope of the right of a trustee to recover from or be indemnified out of trust assets in respect of liabilities and other expenditure properly incurred by the trustee. A seven-member Board was convened because the Privy Council was asked to reconsider part of its decision in Investec Trust (Guernsey) Ltd v Glenalla Properties Ltd [2019] AC 271.
What steps should directors take when dealing with challenges to their company's solvency? We provide a high-level guide to the legal framework, looking at directors' general duties in an insolvency context and how the safe harbour defence to insolvent trading applies.
What suggests a company may be financially distressed? What are directors' legal obligations? At what point should they seek advice?
Our guide explains the law, to help directors understand what they need to do.
Directors' general duties in an insolvency context
The recent High Court decision in Re Nostrum Oil & Gas plc [2022] EWHC 2249 (Ch) considers a scheme of arrangement where creditors are the target of Russian sanctions.
Background
On 5 October 2022, the Supreme Court delivered its long awaited judgment in BTI 2014 LLC V Sequana SA [2022] UKSC 25 dismissing an appeal by BTI. Lord Reed and Lady Arden each gave their own judgments which concurred, largely applying the same reasoning, with the judgment of Lord Briggs with whom Lord Kitchen and Lord Hodge agreed.
Chapter 11 Subchapter V cases are a relatively new animal in the bankruptcy world. Subchapter V was added to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in February 2020 to provide an efficient and cost-effective alternative process for small businesses wishing to organize under Chapter 11.
Unlike regular Chapter 11 business reorganizations, Subchapter V provides for the appointment of a trustee. However, Subchapter V provides little detail about the role of these trustees. This article discusses how one court dealt with this ambiguity.
Background