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。

Over the years, I’ve heard lots of people say, “Bankruptcy abuse is a huge problem,” as a self-evident and undeniable proposition.

But here’s the thing. Debtors who try to abuse the bankruptcy system rarely get away with it. That’s because there are too many gatekeepers—and no debtor can fool them all!

The gatekeepers are debtor’s counsel, creditors and their attorneys, U.S. Trustees, bankruptcy courts, and appellate courts.

On March 15, 2024, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a ruling that broadly applied the “safe harbor” provision of section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code to insulate from state and federal fraudulent transfer attack certain transactions involving private securities. Petr, Trustee for BWGS, LLC v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A. and Sun Capital Partners VI, L.P., No. 23-1931, 2024 WL 1132170 (7th Cir. 2024). The court addressed two questions of first impression in the Seventh Circuit:

TO BE OR NOT TO BE (SOLVENT) - A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SINGAPORE, UK, US, AND AUSTRALIA ON RECOGNISING FOREIGN PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE UNCITRAL MODEL LAW PIERRE DZAKPASU, ANNE JESUDASON, FLORENCE LI The recent case of Ascentra Holdings, Inc v. SPGK Pte Ltd [2023] SGCA 32 (Ascentra) has drawn a line in the sand in the Singapore court's interpretation of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (UNCITRAL Model Law), as incorporated in the Third Schedule of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (IRDA) to create the Singapore Model Law.

Die Anforderungen der Finanzverwaltung an die Steuerfreiheit von unternehmensbezogenen Sanierungen steigen in der Praxis.

The Court of Civil Appeal (CCA) delivered an interesting judgment on the adequacy of affidavit evidence when making a bankruptcy order. The CCA, acting solely on the basis of affidavit evidence, upheld an order of the Bankruptcy Court adjudging the appellant (Mr Balgobin) bankrupt pursuant to Section 8 of the Insolvency Act. The issues raised on appeal by the Appellant and which the CCA had to determine on were:

The Supreme Court of Gibraltar has confirmed that the court does not have the power to extend the time for the filing of an application to set aside a statutory demand issued under the Insolvency Act 2011.

A party that claims it is owned monies (the amount must be more than £750) is entitled to issue a statutory demand against the debtor. If the debtor does not apply to the court to set aside the demand within 21 days of being served, the court has no power to extend the time for doing so.