In early February, a Delaware bankruptcy judge set new precedent by granting a creditors’ committee derivative standing to pursue breach of fiduciary duty claims against a Delaware LLC’s members and officers. At least three prior Delaware Bankruptcy Court decisions had held that creditors were barred from pursuing such derivative claims by operation of Delaware state law, specifically under the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act (the “DLLCA”).

In In re Hal Luftig Company, Inc., the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Judge Denise L. Cote), denied confirmation of a Subchapter V plan of reorganization that contained a nonconsensual release of a non-debtor party.

Background

Motions to Transfer Venue Filed More Than a Year Postpetition and after Chapter 11 Plan Confirmed Deemed Untimely

Mareva orders, also known as freezing orders, may be granted when there is a risk that a defendant might move its assets out of reach of the court’s jurisdiction. Mareva can orders freeze assets owned directly or indirectly by the defendants. Oftentimes a defendant subject to a freezing order has other creditors seeking repayment. Can a creditor enforce its claim against the frozen assets? Yes, but the creditor must come to the court with clean hands and should not make loans to the defendant if it has notice of the order.

We have previouslyblogged about the section 546(e) defense to a trustee’s avoidance powers under the Bankruptcy Code. A trustee has broad powers to set aside certain transfers made by debtors before bankruptcy. See 11 U.S.C. §§ 544, 547, 548.

In 2019, Congress enacted the Small Business Reorganization Act, which created subchapter V within chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. Congress’ intent was to create a more cost-efficient and streamlined restructuring process for small businesses by modifying certain provisions of chapter 11 for debtors with claims below a specific debt cap. In particular, because creditors typically have smaller claims against these small businesses, the new subchapter takes into account the likelihood that there will be no or minimal meaningful creditor participation.

Following a series of important decisions in England and across Europe, it is now beyond doubt that court-based restructuring processes should be approached from the outset as pieces of litigation.

We have seen increasingly sophisticated challenges to restructurings, which the courts are willing to accommodate. In appropriate cases, the courts have also refused to sanction restructurings.

Judgment and award creditors often fret that US courts are unfriendly and the tools to unravel complicated asset protection schemes are inadequate. In an encouraging ruling refuting this sentiment, the Southern District of New York recently reiterated its endorsement for reverse veil piercing as a remedy for unsatisfied judgment creditors seeking to hold corporate entities responsible for judgment liabilities of shareholders and directors.

Introduction

In bankruptcy, attorney´s fees are a fundamental element of the process when establishing the correct compensation for those professionals representing the interests of the parties involved. This matter sometimes sparks intense debates in the legal field, particularly regarding the classification of these credits as concurrent or non-concurrent. In this regard, especially when constituted after the declaration of bankruptcy, the matter of the concurrent vs. non-concurrent nature of attorney´s fees had different perspectives over the years.

引言

近期，香港高等法院正式颁布针对一家大型港股公司（“港股公司”）的清盘令并委任清盘人。这宗债项涉及约数十亿美元的清盘呈请终于落下帷幕，也成为香港有史以来涉及金额最大的清盘案件之一。不少客户均希望了解，香港法下这类清盘对债权人利益及权利之影响。我们将持续推出系列文章，为大家介绍有关内容。

案情简介

根据香港公司清盘法律规定，公司任何一位债权人、股东或公司本身均可通过向高等法院提交清盘呈请书发起针对该公司的强制清盘。就该案而言，数月前港股公司的一债权人入禀香港高等法院，对港股公司提起清盘呈请（“呈请”）。该清盘呈请提出后，历经多次聆讯及延期申请，香港高等法院最终针对港股公司颁布了清盘令。

债权人对清盘债务人的行动

一旦公司进入强制清盘程序，根据香港公司清盘法律规定，所有针对该公司的诉讼程序均会自动中止。该规定目的在于确保清盘程序的有序进行，公司资产不会被用于提起或辩护任何法律程序，以保护公司财产和债权人利益。