In Re Tantleff, Alan [2022] SGHC 147, the Singapore High Court considered for the first time whether the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (30 May 1997) (the "UNCITRAL Model Law") as enacted under the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 ("IRDA") (the "Singapore Model Law") applies to real estate investment trusts ("REITs").
Is the rule in Gibbs justifiable in the context of modern international insolvency laws or is England clinging to an outdated rule simply to keep restructurings here? The rule stems from an 1890 Court of Appeal Case, which holds that only English courts can validate the compromise or discharge of English law governed debt. The rule cuts across the trend of increased cross-border cooperation in insolvency matters – commonly described as the “modified universalist” approach and critics see the rule as a relic of a more Anglo-centric approach to insolvency law.
When an enforcement authority issues guidelines to its personnel for making enforcement decisions and makes those guidelines public, all who are subject to that authority should sit-up and take notice.
On June 10, 2022, the U.S. Trustee’s Office, Department of Justice, issues “Guidelines” to its personnel for enforcing rules on “Bifurcated Chapter 7 Fee Agreements.”[Fn. 1]
Here is an internal description on the nature of the guidelines (at 6):
The long awaited reforms to Cayman Islands restructuring laws will come into force on 31 August 2022. The formal gazetting of these laws today (29 July 2022) has helpfully provided a hard-and-fast commencement date.
Debtors will now be able to file in the Cayman Islands court for the appointment of restructuring officers and obtain an immediate stay on unsecured creditor action, without the need to file a winding up petition.
These new proceedings, while retaining all that is positive with the prior law, will significantly enhance the Cayman Islands restructuring regime by:
Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), a trade creditor may initiate corporate insolvency resolution process if there is an unpaid operational debt above INR 10 million. An ‘operational debt’ under the Code means a claim in relation to goods and services. The insolvency courts have provided divergent views on the issue of whether rental dues or license fees for use of premises would qualify as an ‘operational debt’ under the Code.
In recent years the world’s major financial hubs have placed an increased emphasis on cross-border communication and cooperation when it comes to the insolvency and restructuring of international enterprises. Singapore, for example, has implemented a new insolvency regime and the UK, for its part, has added a new scheme of arrangement comparable in some respects to Chapter 11 in the US.
In a recent decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (In the matter of C.V. Joint (Aust) Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 981), a provisional liquidator was appointed by the Court to a company primarily due to an ongoing dispute between the directors and shareholders. The case is a useful reminder of the relevant principles that apply when seeking to have a provisional liquidator appointed.
Key takeaways
知名的上海臺商麺包店宜芝多因受困於疫情，在2020年關閉了70家門市，惟惡夢連連，正當中國大陸疫情緩解之際，晚近又出現關於屬下門市大規模停業的消息。唯當企業進入後疫情時代，或許就會頻繁出現諸如宜芝多之類企業財務困境的情況；即一言以蔽之，好不容易從疫情最艱苦的時刻中堅持過來，換來的卻可能是舊商業模式的裂解、新商業模式的重塑。基此，本文以下將會循中國大陸企業破產法的角度切入，探討制定符合台商之最大利益的重整計畫；反之，就是走向破產清算，此時的大陸台商又當如何平衡勞工、消費者、股東等相關利害關係人的利益。
Houst Limited's (the Company) restructuring plan (under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006) (RP) was recently sanctioned at the High Court on 22 July 2022.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
We have previously written about Siegel v. Fitzgerald, No. 21-441, the Supreme Court case considering the question of whether the 2018 difference in fees between Bankruptcy Administrator judicial districts and U.S. Trustee judicial districts was consistent with the Constitution’s uniformity requirement for bankruptcy laws.