Much discussion has been had recently about the fact that cryptocurrencies (tokens and coins) do not fit neatly into a generally accepted financial asset classification. The value of most cryptocurrencies is not pegged to any tangible commodity or fiat currency.
开曼群岛法例中的新设重组制度，大有可能受到一众审慎董事垂青 – 尤其鉴于许多公司正面对种种宏观经济状况及困难。且看康德明开曼群岛合伙人 Jonathon Milne、律师 Rowana-Kay Campbell 及香港合伙人林宛萱如何剖析其原因。
开曼群岛《公司法》第 V 部将于今年修订，当中所订立的公司重组制度，可谓万众期待。
新制度将赋予董事一项新增法定权力，董事可藉此在相关公司陷入财政困难并有意向债权人提出还款方案时，向开曼群岛法院提出呈请以委任具适合资格的重组主任。
对于在责任上须要考虑债权人利益的董事而言，上述新增权力意义重大。
本文将参照最新典据，探讨董事有何责任须考虑债权人利益，以及该等责任会因何种情况而触发。
关于新制度下的其他生效变更，请见《新设重组主任制度概览》一文。
“2 There is one inconsequential difference — § 1228(a) refers to debt ‘of a kind specified,’ while § 1192(2) refers to debt ‘of the kind specified.’” [Fn. 1]
This “inconsequential difference” quotation, from footnote 2 in the Fourth Circuit’s Cantwell v. Clearyopinion, is on the application of § 523 discharge exceptions to corporations and LLCs. The “inconsequential difference” quote, is both:
The Power Ministry has issued directions under Section 11 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (“Direction”), mandating all imported coal-based generating power- plants (“Gencos”) to operate and generate at their full capacity. The Direction also mandates that where the relevant Genco is undergoing corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”), under IBC, the resolution professional shall take steps to make such plants functional.
This week’s TGIF considers a decision of Georges (Liquidator), in the Matter of SIRA Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2022] FCA 768, in which liquidators were granted leave to serve a summons for examination on a company based in Singapore.
Key takeaways
Good afternoon.
Following are this week’s summaries of the Court of Appeal for Ontario for the week of July 11, 2022. There were many interesting cases this week.
In Humphrey v. Mene Inc., the Court allowed an appeal in part and reduced damages for wrongful dismissal from twelve months to seven as a result of the plaintiff’s failure to reasonably mitigate by accepting another comparable position seven months after she had been dismissed. The awards of aggravated and punitive damages were upheld.
On 05 July 2022, a Full Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in Jaipur Trade Expocentre Private Limited v. M/s Metro Jet Airways Training Private Limited, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 423 of 2021, held that a claim towards unpaid license fees for an immovable property would constitute an operational debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) and consequently constitute a debt in default for initiating the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP).
InBailey Tool & Mfg. Co. v. Republic Bus. Credit, LLC, 2021 Bankr. LEXIS 3502 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Dec. 23, 2021), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas clarified how aggressive a secured lender can be when enforcing its rights. The 145-page opinion details how a lending arrangement went “terribly wrong” and why awarding millions in damages was warranted.
Background
私は、当事務所にて事務職員として勤務していますが、前職 は大阪地方裁判所の裁判所書記官として、裁判所での倒産 事務に携わっておりました。現在も当事務所の倒産事件につ き弁護士をサポートしていますので、元書記官の視点から、今 回は「別除権」と「更生担保権」という倒産手続上の担保権に 関する用語についてお話いたします。
破産手続や再生手続においては、特別の先取特権、質権、 抵当権または商事留置権等の担保権は、倒産手続によらな いで権利を行使できるとされており、この権利のことを「別除 権」と定義しています（破産法2条9項、同65条1項、民事再生 法53条）。つまり、「別除権」とは、これら担保権が本来有する 権能、ほぼ担保権そのもののことを指しているといえます。
ところが、裁判所や弁護士が「別除権」という用語を用いる 場合は、かならずしも「担保権」の意味だけにとどまらず、「別 除権付き（破産または再生）債権」の趣旨で用いることも多く、 実務上はある程度定着した表現となっています。
よって、裁判所や弁護士とやり取りをする中で、「別除権」とい う用語が用いられている場合は、「別除権付き（破産または再 生）債権」の趣旨で用いられている可能性も念頭に置いておく と、すっきりとした理解につながる場合が多いと思われます。
In Shandong Chenming Paper Holdings Limited v Arjowiggins HKK2 Limited [2022] HKCFA 11, the Court of Final Appeal has confirmed that the "leverage" created by the prospect of a winding-up – as opposed to the making of a winding-up order – provides a legitimate form of "benefit" for the purposes of satisfying the second of the three "core requirements" for winding up a foreign incorporated company in Hong Kong.