In life (as in business), as Heraclitus said, “the only constant is change.” In today’s fast-paced economy, this axiom should be kept in mind during contract negotiations, especially in a bear market.

On November 7, 2022, cloud manufacturing and digital supply chain company Fast Radius, Inc. of Chicago, IL filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 22-11051). The company reports $69.3 million in assets and $55.2 million in liabilities.

The Supreme Court, in a key judgment handed down on 5 October 2022 (BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and others [2022] UKSC 25), has provided some important clarification around the scope of directors’ duties in the context of companies that are nearing insolvency.

Factual background

The High Court of England and Wales has recently provided welcome clarification around the nature of events of default under derivatives contracts governed by the ISDA Master Agreement, in particular in relation to whether an insolvency related event of default can be cured and so cease to be continuing. This brings to an end a long running debate around the extent to which, and for how long, a party can continue to rely on the condition precedent to payment contained in the ISDA framework documentation where the other party is subject to such an event of default.

Insolvency practitioners (IPs) often occupy quasi-judicial offices which, among other things, require them to, assess and adjudicate on competing claims, take coercive and enforcement actions and complete potentially contentious transactions. They must discharge their legal and equitable duties whilst maintaining objectivity and, whilst recognising and appropriately balancing the interests of a diverse range of stakeholders.

The Full Federal Court, overturning Flick’s J decision at first instance ([2020] FCA 1759), found that the bankrupt’s main purpose in transferring their property was, in substance, not to prevent, hinder or delay this property becoming divisible amongst his creditors in breach of s 121(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).

On October 14, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the decision of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas (Isgur, J.) allowing a claim against a solvent debtor for a make-whole premium and post-default interest totaling approximately $387 million. Ultra Petroleum Corp., et al. v.

Two years on from PCP Capital Partners LLP and another v. Barclays Bank Plc [2020] EWHC 1393 (Comm), the High Court has declined to extend the scope of what constitutes a waiver of legal professional privilege. The case of Henderson & Jones Limited v.

以物抵债，指债权人与债务人之间存在金钱债务，双方约定将债务人财产作价交付债权人抵偿债务的行为。实践中，主要分为两种类型，包括当事人双方协商的以物抵债和民事强制执行程序中的以物抵债程序，本文仅就前种以物抵债类型进行探讨。

近年来，随着新冠疫情影响，经济形势发生变化，再加上政策调控等多重因素打击，导致地产行业遭遇寒冬，现金流频繁遭受考验。迫于资金回款压力，为了缓解僵局，地产企业推出“工抵房”“内部房”等房源以期减轻对外负债或实现现金回流。其中，“工抵房”也被称为工程抵款房，是开发商用于给工程方抵扣工程款的一种方式，也是大众所俗称以物抵债的一种常见形式。虽然，工程方的需求是现金而并非房屋，但目前经济形势下，工程方面临开发商无款支付的现实局面，只能无奈被迫接受“工抵房”。尽管“工抵房”的出现使得开发商不再面临房子无路销售的难题，同时解决了部分应付款项；工程方能获得部分“工抵房”以解决工程资金被长期拖欠的难题；购房者可以更低价格买到“工抵房”从而降低购房成本，这一循环链看似多赢，实则隐藏大量法律风险。本文将从“工抵房”的角度，以工抵债权人的视角，对以物抵债的性质、模式、法律风险等维度进行分析，以期对实践和后续研究有所贡献。

一、以物抵债协议的性质

Introduction

On 5 October 2022, the UK Supreme Court delivered its long-awaited judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v. Sequana SA and others [2022] UKSC 25 ("Sequana Case") which concerns the question of the trigger point when directors must have regard to the interests of creditors ("Creditor Duty"). This case raised questions of considerable importance for Malaysian company law.