Chapter 11 bankruptcy has long been thought of as anathema to commercial real estate (CRE) lenders. This is due to the debtor-friendly bankruptcy forum, particularly with respect to (i) the up to 18 month exclusivity period during which only the debtor could propose a plan of reorganization and (ii) threats of a "cram-down" plan used to lever concessions from lenders. These provisions can be, and often were, abused by debtors with no real rehabilitative intent using bankruptcy only as a leverage tool.
In Hungary, many creditors choose liquidation procedure instead of classic court procedures (i.e. order for payment and civil litigation) in order to recover their claims. A recent decision has once again demonstrated that liquidation proceedings can in many cases be a simpler solution for creditors to recover their claims. In this article following an introduction to the relevant rules of the liquidation procedure we will examine this decision.
1. Liquidation procedure in nutshell
Die §§ 89 – 91 StaRUG: Eigenständiger Regelungsinhalt oder lediglich klarstellender Charakter? Wir klären auf!
Die EU-Richtlinie über Restrukturierung und Insolvenz (Restrukturierungsrichtlinie) enthält in Kapitel 4 (Art. 17, 18) besondere Vorschriften zur Insolvenzanfechtung. Diese hat der deutsche Gesetzgeber mit den §§ 89 – 91 StaRUG in nationales Recht umgesetzt. Daher lohnt sich ein vertiefter Blick auf diese Vorschriften.
Richtliniengeber möchte Finanzierungen und Zwischenfinanzierungen schützen
Consent of secured creditors with no remaining economic interest is not needed to extend the administration of a company
Osborne Clarke recently advised the administrators in two reported High Court cases which have confirmed that a "secured creditor" under section 248 of the Insolvency Act 1986 should be construed in the present tense, retaining the status of secured creditor only if it is still owed a debt by the company in administration.
In Sian Participation Corp v Halimedia International Ltd [2024] UKPC 16, Lords Briggs and Hamblen considered the issue of whether insolvency proceedings should be stayed where the underlying debt was covered by an arbitration agreement.
The High Court has confirmed in the recent case of Hyde and another v Djurberg and others ([2024] EWHC 1188 (Ch)) that it won't tolerate the concealment of after-acquired property from trustees in bankruptcy, even when the property is the subject of a settlement agreement and paid onto various third parties. The judgment highlights the importance of monitoring a bankrupt's affairs as a trustee, acting quickly to preserve assets and serving a notice pursuant to section 307 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (Act) if there's a potential claim for after-acquired property.
On 11 June 2024, Mr. Justice Leech handed down a landmark UK judgment relating to wrongful trading and misfeasance against the former directors of the BHS Group of companies (BHS) pursuant to the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA86).
The 533-page judgment saw one of the largest reported wrongful trading awards since the introduction of IA86, as well as a novel claim for “misfeasant trading.”
The Privy Council has recently upheld a BVI judgment refusing stay of a winding up petition in favour of arbitration. The recent Sian Participation Corp (In Liquidation) v Halimeda International Ltd1 Privy Council decision provides much needed clarity on the exercise of the Court’s discretion to wind up a company where the debt is not disputed on genuine and substantial grounds and is subject to an arbitration clause.
On June 20, 2024, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas (the “Court”) issued a memorandum decision and order in the adversary proceeding involving Robertshaw US Holding Corp.
在 Sian Participation v. Halimeda International [2024] UKPC 16一案中，布里格斯勋爵（Lord Briggs）和夏宝伦勋爵（Lord Hamblen）代表委员会作出判决，认可了关于清盘呈请的传统做法。两位法官确认，即使产生债务的合同包含仲裁条款，亦不能削弱债务人证明债务确实存在实质性争议的责任（下称“可审理问题标准”）。
该案中，委员会的观点与香港高等法院暂委法官王鸣峰资深大律师（William Wong SC）在 Dayang v. Asia Master Logistics [2020] 2 HKLRD 423 一案中的观点（见判词第82、98段）如出一辙，可归纳如下：