On 7 December 2022, the EU Commission published a draft directive harmonising certain aspects of insolvency law, which is now undergoing EU legislative procedure. In light of this the proposal, this article provides an overview of the current state of avoidance rights regulation under the insolvency legal framework in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Insolvency avoidance rights regulation in Bosnia and Herzegovina

In response to the EU Commission's proposal for a directive to harmonse specific elements of insolvency law on 7 December 2022, this article explores avoidance actions, one of the Directive Proposal’s key aspects, and the way avoidance actions are regulated in Serbia and Montenegro as EU candidate countries.

In the context of insolvency proceedings, avoidance actions involve the annulment of transactions undertaken by the insolvent debtor before the initiation of insolvency proceedings.

Avoidance actions in Serbia

For RSLs who are routinely contracting with housebuilders for golden brick delivery of affordable housing across multiple phases, we discuss the four key actions that can help if the housebuilder becomes insolvent.

1. Pre-Insolvency – Financial Distress Provisions and Due Diligence

Comme nous l’avions prédit dans nos numéros précédents de L’Actualité en insolvabilité, l’augmentation attendue du nombre de dossiers d’insolvabilité des entreprises s’est matérialisée en 2023. Dans ce numéro de L’Actualité en insolvabilité, nous exposons en détail les conclusions suivantes tirées de nos données : – Le nombre de dossiers d’insolvabilité d’entreprises a atteint son plus haut niveau en 2023 depuis 2019, soit une augmentation de 41,4 % comparativement au nombre de dossiers d’insolvabilité d’entreprises en 2020 et une augmentation de 30,7 % comparativement à celui de 2019.

（１）分割前の債権債務（１）分割前の債権債務第１ はじめに

中国子会社が複数の事業を営んでおり一部の事業を 切り離したいような場合、優良事業と不良事業とに分 ける方法がある。具体的には①会社分割、②事業譲渡 といった方法がある。これらの方法は中国子会社を再 編する方法として有効である。

第２ 会社分割

１ 会社分割とは

After a long and arduous litigation Jet Airways’ insolvency woes have finally reached a conclusion. At least that is the hope unless the litigation is taken to the Supreme Court. Having said that, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) in its decision dated 12.03.2024, in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 129 & 130 of 2023, approved the transfer of ownership of Jet Airways to the Jalan Kalrock Consortium (“JKC”). This hopefully leads the path for the commencement of a new era for the airline.

The High Court has handed down an important decision confirming that an unrecognised foreign judgment can be used to form the basis of a bankruptcy petition.

In rejecting the bankrupt’s appeal, the court confirmed that a debt arising pursuant to such a judgment is capable of constituting a “debt” for the purposes of section 267 Insolvency Act 1986 (the Act), despite the fact that the underlying judgment had not been the subject of recognition proceedings in England.

Facts

引言

自2022年5月起，上市公司“携带”未到期可转债进入预重整或重整程序的案例逐步在A股视野中涌现。截至目前，重整计划成功执行并顺利处置可转债违约风险的只有*ST正邦（002157）和*ST全筑（603030）两个案例。作为一种上市公司破产重整领域的新兴产品，由于可转债具有债权性、股权性和二级市场可交易等特点，较重整中的其他普通债权更具特殊性，给上市公司破产重整提出了“新课题”，应当在重整中进行定制化处理。

可转债在上市公司破产重整中的处理方式保持了其作为金融工具“进可攻，退可守”的特点，债券持有人可以选择到期兑付、转卖或转股。因此，重整方案设计中最为核心的是保护可转债原持有人在可转债产品项下的合法权利。通常做法为保留可转债持有人一定期限的交易及转股权利，利用可转债的特殊规则为持有人做好权利保护衔接，实现上市公司与持有人的利益共赢。

本文谨从可转债的特殊性及权利保护措施、实践中主要案例总结及重整方案设计要点等三个方面展开，对存续可转债在上市公司破产重整中的处理方式进行总结和探讨。

一、可转债的特殊性及权利保护

（一）可转债的特殊性

Ever since unpaid taxes due to HMRC were “crammed down” pursuant to a restructuring plan that it voted against but did not actively oppose in Houst,¹ HMRC has challenged restructuring plans and asserted its interests more aggressively, causing the failure of restructuring plans inNasmyth

Businesses often rely on trade credit insurance to protect themselves from customers’ inability to pay for products or services. An interesting question that arose recently in the Indian insolvency context was that when a creditor’s claim for pending dues is paid out by an insurer, can the creditor, having received such pay-out, maintain an insolvency action against the debtor? The National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLAT”) has answered this in the affirmative.