引言

在香港、中国内地和台湾等司法管辖区运营的家族企业，通常会把企业的实益拥有权和控制权置于英属维尔京群岛（下称“BVI”）注册成立的公司股东名下。受惠于 BVI 公司隐私法的相关优势及其对高净值个人和家族的特殊吸引力，整个企业的实益拥有权甚至能位于国际业务结构顶端的 BVI 控股公司（下称“BVI 控股公司”）发行的股份。

从遗产规划的角度来看，为了确保企业由家族或高净值个人保留控制，企业的融资方式通常是通过股东或几个主要股东向企业提供贷款。如果企业多年来的融资方式一直是 BVI 控股公司获提供的贷款，那么该 BVI 公司欠下的债务总额很有可能相当庞大。一旦贷款人去世便会产生一系列问题，例如死者能否追讨 BVI 公司欠下的债务、追讨申请的正确诉讼地等。

本文将厘清上述部分问题，并分享康德明对于已故个人代表在 BVI 追讨债务的一些指引。

September, 2023 For Private Circulation - Educational & Informational Purpose Only A BRIEFING ON LEGAL MATTERS OF CURRENT INTEREST KEY HIGHLIGHTS * Bombay High Court: Secured creditor may initiate recovery proceedings against secured asset owned by guarantor even if principal borrower is placed under moratorium. ⁎ Calcutta High Court: Application for removal of arbitrator must be made before the same court as envisaged in Sections 2(i)(e) and 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

It has been an interesting year-to-date in the Asia Pacific1 Region, particularly in the Mainland2 and Hong Kong3 as the Region has pivoted from COVID-zero to reopening its borders to the world. Given the number of larger scale Mainland property-related restructurings that were promulgated during the pandemic it is fair to say that at least amongst some in the profession, there were great (restructuring) expectations of 2023. This next wave of restructurings has not yet eventuated. Why?

Asia restructuring considerations & observations

一、背景介绍

本案1中的被告、破产债务人美国航运公司（United States Lines Inc.，以下简称 USL）在世界各地长期经营庞大的海运业务。公司在美国特拉华州注册成立，后将业务拓展到英国，控股公司为在纽约注册的麦克莱恩工业公司（McLean Industries Inc.）。1986年，USL根据《美国破产法》第11章的规定，于11月24日提出破产申请。同日，美国纽约南区的地方破产法庭（以下简称美国破产法庭）的布施曼（Buschman）法官作出临时禁令并指定债务人托管人。USL的申请内容显示：公司资产共计12.5亿美元，总债务为12.72亿美元，负债金额超过资产的102%。而在英国，其欠下的总债务（已经清算的债务）达到243.4万英镑（包括拖欠原告的债务），资产约为72万英镑，债务超过资产的3倍，严重资不抵债。鉴于此，USL根据《美国破产法》第11章的规定进行重整，并计划完全关闭公司在英国和欧洲的运营。

In the case of Bester N.O & Others v Mirror Trading International Proprietary Limited (in liquidation) t/a MTI, the Western Cape Division of the High Court considered whether cryptocurrencies fell within the definition of property under the context of the Insolvency Act and whether courts in South Africa had jurisdiction in respect of cryptocurrency.

Demonstrating that dissenting creditors are no worse off under a contested restructuring plan than in the relevant alternative is an essential requirement for the court to exercise its power to sanction the plan

The power of the court to sanction a restructuring plan where one or more classes of creditors or members has not voted in favour of the plan by the requisite majority (being 75% in value of those present and voting) is referred to as the "cross-class cram down".

The equitable mootness doctrine is before the U.S. Supreme Court on a Petition for writ of certiorari. The case is U.S. Bank National Association v. Windstream Holdings, Inc.[Fn. 1]

All who’ve seen an effort to abuse equitable mootness, from a creditor’s view, will appreciate the following information from U.S. Bank’s Petition and from a supporting Amicus Brief of law professors in U.S. Bank v. Windstream.

The Supreme Court’s long awaited decision in Yan v Mainzeal Property and Construction Ltd (In Liq) offers some much needed clarity on directors’ duties in New Zealand. Our initial summary of the decision and its implications is here. This article provides a more detailed review of the state of directors’ obligations post-Mainzeal.

The recent ex-tempore judgment of Kawaley J in Atom Holdings¹ in the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands serves as a timely reminder to practitioners and industry participants alike that obtaining an adjournment of a winding-up petition² requires cogent evidence demonstrating good reason(s) for delaying what is otherwise the collective right of creditors to seek relief via court intervention.

Addressing an issue of first impression, the Second Circuit held recently that bankruptcy courts have inherent authority to impose non-nominal civil contempt sanctions, including per diem sanctions and attorneys’ fees, arising out of an attorney’s failure to comply with the bankruptcy court’s discovery orders.