On 7 December 2022, the European Commission published the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council harmonising certain aspects of insolvency law. This Proposal is intended to harmonise the insolvency laws of EU member states in order to make insolvency proceedings more predictable and efficient. The Proposal also includes a number of principles the pre-pack proceedings in each member state must meet.

The Proposal defines pre-pack proceedings as:

The question of whether a British Virgin Islands Court can order the examination of foreign persons in the liquidation of BVI companies has been the subject of two recent conflicting decisions of the Commercial Division of the High Court. As such, the answer to the question is likely to remain uncertain until it has been resolved by the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal.

The Statutory Framework

Section 284 of the Insolvency Act, 2003 provides that:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit quietly affirmed a bankruptcy court’s dismissal of an involuntary petition because the petitioners’ “claims were the subject of bona fide disputes within the meaning of” Bankruptcy Code (Code) §303(b)(1) (petitioner may not hold claim that is “the subject of a bona fide dispute as to liability or amount”). In re Navient Solutions, LLC, 2023 WL 3487051 (2d Cir. May 17, 2023).

The Court¹ exercised its discretion to sanction a restructuring plan proposed by AGPS BondCo PLC (the Company) (part of the Adler real estate group) to amend indebtedness arising under six series of senior unsecured notes governed by German law, which matured on different dates through to 2029.

In the recent restructuring plan case of Re Nasmyth Group Limited¹("Nasmyth"), the English High Court declined to exercise its discretion to order "cross class cram down" of HMRC, which was a dissenting plan creditor and which had opposed sanction of the plan, concluding that it would be unfair to sanction the plan.

Der BGH festigt und erweitert seine Rechtsprechung zum Kleinbeteiligtenprivileg im Kontext der insolvenzrechtlichen Anfechtung nach § 135 Abs. 1 Nr. 2 InsO.

前言

众所周知，近年来全球经济形势在新冠疫情的阴影下日趋严峻，各行各业均受到了不同程度的负面影响。这种影响传导至PE/VC行业，就演变成“退出难” 问题。被投企业无法上市、业绩低迷、没人接盘……不得已，投资机构们开始打起了“清算”的主意，趁着投资本金还没亏完，能捞回来一点是一点。于是，机构们纷纷向被投企业主张“优先清算权”。关于优先清算权的法律效力，此前的主流观点曾认为《公司法》第186条第二款并不允许有限责任公司自由约定清算剩余财产分配事项，但随着《民法典》的立法进程以及颁布、实施，近年来的司法判例却大多认为《公司法》第186条第二款并非效力性强制性规定，因而支持优先清算权的法律效力。本文拟对几个典型判例进行介绍，以此给PE/VC行业人士提供有益参考。

如系争投资协议项下的“优先清算权”条款约定目标公司在分别支付法定的优于股东之间分配的款项后，部分股东优先于其他股东取得优先分配的，则该股 东内部对于分配顺序进行的约定并不违反《公司法》规定。

案例1

林宇与北京北科创新投资中心（有限合伙）股权转让纠纷案

【(2019)京03民终6335号】

基本事实

The Court of Appeal has upheld the High Court decision of Mr Justice Fancourt in Denaxe Limited v Cooper & Anor [2022] EWHC 764 (Ch) striking out a substantial damages claim brought against court appointed receivers concerning the 2019 sale of Blackpool Football Club.

Summary of Purdue Pharma, L.P. v, City of Grand Prairie (In re Purdue Pharma, L.P.), No. 22–110 – Bk (2d Cir. May 30, 2023)

In vielen Branchen kann die Lieferkette eine Vielzahl von Unternehmen und Jurisdiktionen umfassen. Im derzeitigen Wirtschaftsklima ist es nicht ungewöhnlich, dass einzelne Lieferanten innerhalb dieser Lieferkette in finanzielle   Schwierigkeiten   geraten   oder ein Insolvenzverfahren beantragen.