This Quickguide outlines some practical considerations for companies whose contractual counterparties are experiencing financial distress, including what questions may be asked of the counterparty in relation to its distress and how to negotiate payment terms or recover debts.

1. Overview

In In re Hal Luftig Company, Inc., the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Judge Denise L. Cote), denied confirmation of a Subchapter V plan of reorganization that contained a nonconsensual release of a non-debtor party.

Background

第1 はじめに

The preamble of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘Code’) states its objectives, which are maximisation of value of assets, promote entrepreneurship, within the stipulate time frame. Apart from the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Professional (‘CIRP’) or the Liquidation Process, the Code also provides for a class of transactions which can be ‘avoided’ or ‘undone’ by the appointed Resolution Professional (‘RP’) or the Liquidator, by preferring an Application before the Adjudicating Authority.

Motions to Transfer Venue Filed More Than a Year Postpetition and after Chapter 11 Plan Confirmed Deemed Untimely

Following a series of important decisions in England and across Europe, it is now beyond doubt that court-based restructuring processes should be approached from the outset as pieces of litigation.

We have seen increasingly sophisticated challenges to restructurings, which the courts are willing to accommodate. In appropriate cases, the courts have also refused to sanction restructurings.

Judgment and award creditors often fret that US courts are unfriendly and the tools to unravel complicated asset protection schemes are inadequate. In an encouraging ruling refuting this sentiment, the Southern District of New York recently reiterated its endorsement for reverse veil piercing as a remedy for unsatisfied judgment creditors seeking to hold corporate entities responsible for judgment liabilities of shareholders and directors.

In brief

The UAE has issued Federal Law No. 48 of 2023 in relation to insolvency (the "New Insolvency Law"), which replaces Federal Law No. 9 of 2016 and comes into effect on 1 May 2024. Although the previous law was more progressive compared to the previous insolvency articles embedded in the old Commercial Code of 1993, at least in relation to the numerous insolvency matters and other protective composition and restructuring witnessed by the courts.

We have set out below some of the key characteristics of the New Insolvency Law:

Introduction

In bankruptcy, attorney´s fees are a fundamental element of the process when establishing the correct compensation for those professionals representing the interests of the parties involved. This matter sometimes sparks intense debates in the legal field, particularly regarding the classification of these credits as concurrent or non-concurrent. In this regard, especially when constituted after the declaration of bankruptcy, the matter of the concurrent vs. non-concurrent nature of attorney´s fees had different perspectives over the years.

引言

近期，香港高等法院正式颁布针对一家大型港股公司（“港股公司”）的清盘令并委任清盘人。这宗债项涉及约数十亿美元的清盘呈请终于落下帷幕，也成为香港有史以来涉及金额最大的清盘案件之一。不少客户均希望了解，香港法下这类清盘对债权人利益及权利之影响。我们将持续推出系列文章，为大家介绍有关内容。

案情简介

根据香港公司清盘法律规定，公司任何一位债权人、股东或公司本身均可通过向高等法院提交清盘呈请书发起针对该公司的强制清盘。就该案而言，数月前港股公司的一债权人入禀香港高等法院，对港股公司提起清盘呈请（“呈请”）。该清盘呈请提出后，历经多次聆讯及延期申请，香港高等法院最终针对港股公司颁布了清盘令。

债权人对清盘债务人的行动

一旦公司进入强制清盘程序，根据香港公司清盘法律规定，所有针对该公司的诉讼程序均会自动中止。该规定目的在于确保清盘程序的有序进行，公司资产不会被用于提起或辩护任何法律程序，以保护公司财产和债权人利益。