August, 2023 For Private Circulation - Educational & Informational Purpose Only A BRIEFING ON LEGAL MATTERS OF CURRENT INTEREST KEY HIGHLIGHTS * Calcutta High Court: Courts cannot re-appreciate the evidence or substitute its view with that of the arbitrator while considering the issue of enforcement of a foreign award.

This article was originally published on May 17, 2023, and was updated on August 23, 2023.

Subchapter V of chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, which took effect in 2020, has undergone significant developments since its enactment, as courts continue to interpret its provisions, intended to streamline the chapter 11 process for smaller debtors in bankruptcy. Recent data and judicial decisions have given greater context to not only the popularity of Subchapter V, but also its substantive boundaries, with some of these key developments discussed below.

The recent Hong Kong Court of First Instance decision of Re Shandong Chenming Paper Holdings Limited marks another intersection between the public domain of insolvency and the private realm of arbitration.

In this and previous decisions, the Hong Kong courts have grappled with the issue of which should take priority – a winding-up petition, or the contractual term in the relevant contract that states disputes are to be resolved through arbitration or litigation.

Two primary considerations fuel this debate:

In a recent Court of First Instance decision in Re Shandong Chenming Paper Holdings Ltd [2023] HKCFI 2065 (Shandong Chenming), Harris J addressed the following issues which are important factors to be considered by creditors in strategising whether to opt for commencing winding-up proceedings against a debtor in recovering a debt, as well as by debtors in potentially raising cross-claims to defend a winding-up petition:

BGH bestätigt die Pfändbarkeit des schuldnerischen Wohnungsrechtes am eigenen Grundstück – Was bedeutet das für die Insolvenzverwaltung und den Schuldner?

Als beschränkt persönliche Dienstbarkeit kann auch das Recht bestellt werden, ein Gebäude oder einen Teil eines Gebäudes unter Ausschluss des Eigentümers* als Wohnung zu benutzen, sog. Wohnungsrecht (§ 1093 BGB).

Das Wohnungsrecht im Vergleich zum Wohnrecht

The vast majority of corporate debt issuances are made pursuant to a trustee structure. This approach affords investors the advantage of uniformity of treatment and facilitates collective action, as opposed to the alternative 'fiscal agency' or direct issuance structure. But what happens when an individual investor in a global note structure seeks to take direct enforcement action against an issuer?

Executive Summary

The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a district court’s ruling that there was no actionable infringement where an uncompleted building sold under the authority of a bankruptcy court was later completed. Cornice & Rose International, LLC v. Four Keys, LLC et al., Case No. 22-1976 (8th Cir. Aug. 11, 2023) (Loken, Shepard, Kelly, JJ.) (per curiam). The Court explained that the architectural copyright claims were precluded by the bankruptcy court’s order approving the sale.

The Supreme Court has today released its decision in Yan v Mainzeal Property and Construction Limited (in liquidation) [1] (Mainzeal), upholding the Court of Appeal’s finding that Mainzeal’s directors were liable for insolvent trading and ordering Mainzeal’s directors to pay $39.8 million plus interest, with the liability of three of the four directors capped at $6.6 million plus interest.

MinterEllisonRuddWatts acted for the liquidators in the Mainzeal litigation.

Significance of decision

Key Takeaways

In welcome news for insolvency practitioners, the Supreme Court has limited the circumstances in which a dissatisfied bankrupt will have standing to challenge a trustee in bankruptcy's decisions or actions under section 303(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (Act), to those where there is likely to be a surplus in the bankruptcy estate (subject to only very limited exceptions). The Supreme Court acknowledged that, while this decision is about bankruptcy, the reasoning will also apply to challenges to liquidators' decisions under section 168(5) of the Act.

In welcome news for insolvency practitioners, the Supreme Court has limited the circumstances in which a dissatisfied bankrupt will have standing to challenge a trustee in bankruptcy's decisions or actions under section 303(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (Act), to those where there is likely to be a surplus in the bankruptcy estate (subject to only very limited exceptions). The Supreme Court acknowledged that, while this decision is about bankruptcy, the reasoning will also apply to challenges to liquidators' decisions under section 168(5) of the Act.