Over the years, I’ve heard lots of people say, “Bankruptcy abuse is a huge problem,” as a self-evident and undeniable proposition.

But here’s the thing. Debtors who try to abuse the bankruptcy system rarely get away with it. That’s because there are too many gatekeepers—and no debtor can fool them all!

The gatekeepers are debtor’s counsel, creditors and their attorneys, U.S. Trustees, bankruptcy courts, and appellate courts.

This is the first of a multi-part series of articles on how the gatekeepers prevent abuse. This article focuses on debtor’s attorney.

March, 2024 For Private Circulation - Educational & Informational Purpose Only A BRIEFING ON LEGAL MATTERS OF CURRENT INTEREST KEY HIGHLIGHTS * NCLT: Corporate insolvency resolution process cannot be initiated under Section 7 of IBC based on transfer agreement for purchase of debentures from financial creditors. ⁎ NCLAT: Security for refund of advance amount cannot change the nature of transaction for supply of goods into financial debt.

Die Marktbedingungen werden zunehmen schwieriger, und die Restrukturierungswelle hat Deutschland erreicht. Der Strukturwandel stellt viele deutsche Unternehmen immer wieder vor neue Herausforderungen und erfordert es, Prozesse und Strategien flexibel anzupassen. Parallel erhöht die Zeitenwende im Finanzierungsumfeld den Druck der Geldgeber: Geschäftsmodelle müssen krisenfest gestalten sein, dabei sollen Kosten gesenkt werden - und gleichzeitig ist es erforderlich, sich langfristig zukunftsfähig aufzustellen.

Law No. 7499 on the Amendment of the Criminal Procedure Law and Certain Laws (“Law“) published in the Official Gazette dated 12 March 2024 and numbered 32487 and the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 (“İİK“), Law No. 6100 on Civil Procedure (“HMK“), Law No. 6502 on Consumer Protection (“TKHK“), Law No. 5326 on Misdemeanours (“Misdemeanour Law“), and Criminal Procedure Code No. 5271 (“CMK“).

Market conditions are growing increasingly difficult as the restructuring wave reaches Germany. Many German companies are struggling as they are faced with the challenge of structural changes and a necessity to adapt their processes and strategies. At the same time, significant change in the financing sector is adding to the pressure on borrowers: business models must be crisis-proof and costs reduced – while at the same time it is necessary to position oneself for the future.

In brief

On 18 January 2024, the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) issued its decision in Re PT Garuda Indonesia (Persero) Tbk [2024] SGHC(I) (“Re Garuda Indonesia“), which was the SICC’s first decision on an application under the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (as enacted in Singapore in the Third Schedule of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (2020 Rev Ed) (“Singapore Model Law“)).

Bygge- og anlægsbranchen har i de seneste år oplevet en kraftig stigning i antallet af konkurser og toppede foreløbigt i 2023 med hele 1.282 erklærede konkurser. Da konkurserne ofte er forbundet med store tab, hvis de indtræder under et igangværende byggeri, har tendensen i stigende grad aktualiseret en belysning af de muligheder, der er for at sikre sig imod sådanne tab.

The rescue of a company in business rescue ultimately depends on the implementation of a viable business rescue plan which has received the support of 75% of the creditors of the company. A recent business rescue case of Wescoal Mining (Pty) Ltd Another v Mkhombo NO¹ and Other has potentially wide-ranging implications for creditors after business rescue has commenced.

B&D is pleased to present the next installment of our 2024 Litigation Look Ahead series. (Read part four covering Fifth Amendment takings cases here).

一、问题的提出

债务人向债权人借款，由保证人提供保证担保。借款到期后，债务人与保证人均未偿还该笔借款。后法院裁定受理保证人的破产申请，债权人因此向保证人的管理人申报债权，要求保证人就债务人所欠借款及利息承担保证责任。管理人审查并确认了该笔债权。（简见以下表1案型法律关系表）根据《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国民法典〉有关担保制度的解释》（下称“《民法典担保制度解释》”）第22条之规定，[1]保证债权应当自保证人的破产申请受理时起停止计息。与债务人破产时保证债权随同主债权停止计息不同的是，保证人破产导致保证债权停止计息，却不能反向及于主债权也停止计息。其后债务人向债权人清偿了部分债务。此时，管理人将面临如下难题：在主债权未停止计息的情况下，债权人获得债务人部分清偿后，在保证人的破产程序中，管理人先前认定的债权数额是否须要调整？如果须要调整，应该如何进行调整？鉴于该问题在实务中相对较为前沿，笔者曾多次尝试检索与之相关的法规、判例、理论文献、实务文章等，对于解决该问题的资料寥寥无几。虽无前人的解决方案可供参照，但该问题仍然亟待解决。在缺乏相应法律规范的情况下，下文将通过民法基础理论的推演，尝试为解决这一问题提供思路。