１ 倒産手続の債権者申立て

債務超過や支払不能等の要件がある場合、債権者が主体と なって、債務者につき倒産・再生手続（破産、民事再生、会社 更生）の申立てをすることができます（債権者申立て一般につ いては、村上寛「倒産手続の債権者申立て」（2019年9月号）に て概説しておりますので、そちらをご参照ください。）。

債権者が債務者の破産申立てを行う事例はそこまで一般的 ではありませんが、それでも、債務の弁済に非協力的である一 方、財産隠匿や偏頗行為、放漫経営等による財産の減少が 疑われる事例は枚挙に暇がないところです。

そこで今回は、債務者が、自らに対する債権の弁済に非協力 的である一方で、既に、金品の持ち出し、預金の解約、不動産 の第三者への廉価売却、役員報酬の増額と回収等の財産隠 匿行為、あるいは全債権を支払うことのできない状態にあるの に、特定の債権者に対してだけ偏った弁済をする等の偏頗行 為が進行してしまい、弁済の対象となるべき財産（責任財産） の会社からの流出が起こってしまっているときに、債権者として 採りうる手段の一つとして、破産法上の保全管理命令を紹介 したいと思います。

２ 保全管理命令について

Third-party, or nondebtor, releases have continued to attract attention from both commentators and legislators in the wake of recent cases such as Purdue Pharma LP, Boy Scouts of America and USA Gymnastics. Most recently, Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), and Representatives Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Carolyn B.

Payment Orders were originally introduced in the CPC as a fast track route for creditors holding a financial instrument, such as a letter of credit or cheque, to obtain judgment against their debtor for what is a simple and indisputable debt. Payment Orders were rarely issued by the onshore UAE courts. In 2018, Cabinet Resolution No 57 of 2018 (the “2018 Cabinet Resolution”) significantly expanded the scope of application of Payment Orders by extending them to all admitted debts rather than simply those arising out of financial instruments only.

In Australia, s 436A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) provides for the circumstances in which a company may appoint a voluntary administrator. This provision requires the company’s board to resolve that: (a) in the opinion of the directors voting for the resolution, the company is insolvent, or is likely to become insolvent at some future time; and (b) an administrator of the company should be appointed.

Back in July, Craig Eller wrote in The Bankruptcy Protector about the continuing confusion amongst courts and litigants regarding the applicability of a 2018 increase in fees payable to the Office of the United States Trustee in chapter 11 cases.

The following company law cases have been reported in CCH Pinpoint:

Directors’ duties: director breaches multiple duties by causing companies to provide security for unrelated parties

In the matter of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”) of Bloom Lake, the Superior Court of Québec rendered a judgment regarding the expansion of the powers of the monitor in a context where a creditor refused to produce documentation requested by the debtors.

Corporate restructuring transactions are often motivated by tax planning, though there are usually other legitimate corporate needs to be achieved. The Corporations Tax Code of Japan contains provisions granting the government power to deny the effects of corporate restructuring for tax purposes—e.g., Article 132 (for family company group transactions) and Article 132-2 (for intra-group mergers and other reorganizations). In recent years, Japanese courts have been trying to clarify the standard for denying the tax effect of certain restructuring transactions.

Throughout the pandemic we have seen a succession of temporary practice directions, enabling practitioners to deal with the swearing of notices of intention (NOI) and notices of appointment (NOA) of administrators remotely, as well as answering a question which the judiciary had grappled with several times – when does a notice of intention or notice of appointment come into effect if filed outside of court hours?

Dans le cadre de l’affaire Bloom Lake relative à la Loi sur les arrangements avec les créanciers des compagnies (la « Lacc »), la Cour supérieure du Québec prononce un jugement au sujet de l'élargissement des pouvoirs du contrôleur dans un contexte où un créancier refusait de produire la documentation demandée par les débitrices.