The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a borrower’s petition seeking relief under the federal All Writs Act for purported violations of the automatic bankruptcy stay in continued foreclosure proceedings and purported violations of the borrower’s rights to remove the state court proceedings to the bankruptcy court.

1. Introduction

In Li Yiqing v Lamtex Holdings Ltd [2021] HKCFI 622, the Companies Court considered whether to put a Bermuda-incorporated company into immediate liquidation in Hong Kong or to adjourn the local winding-up petition to allow restructuring to proceed with the involvement of joint provisional liquidators appointed in Bermuda.

The Court of Appeal of Alberta issued the latest decision in the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings of Bellatrix Exploration Ltd. (Bellatrix).¹

Q4 2020 and Q1 2021 saw some significant developments in offshore restructuring, insolvency and corporate recovery, with the passage of new legislation and the handing down of judgments providing welcome clarification on laws relevant to practitioners in this area.

This week’s TGIF considers the decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales In the matter of Gearhouse BSI Pty Ltd [2021] NSWSC 98. In this case, one of the joint venture parties obtained an order to wind up the joint venture on the basis that the underlying purpose of the business had failed.

Key takeaways

Both creditors and debtors need to know about unsecured creditors committees. These committees can help parties in a bankruptcy case, but they come with a cost. And most of the time, they’re appointed as a matter of course.

What is an unsecured creditors committee?

On 15th September 2020, the Companies Act (Suspension of Filing for Dissolution and Winding Up) Regulations (the ‘Regulations’) were introduced as part of several other measures intended to protect local businesses from the adverse economic impact brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. They became applicable retrospectively as from 16th March 2020.

IMPACT ON CREDITORS AND SHAREHOLDERS

事業再生・債権管理Newsletter 2021年3月号 6 本ニュースレターの発行元は弁護士法人大江橋法律事務所です。弁護士法人大江橋法律事務所は、1981年に設立された日本の総合法律事務所です。東京、大阪、名古屋、海外は上海にオフィスを構えており、主に企業法務 を中心とした法的サービスを提供しております。本ニュースレターの内容は、一般的な情報提供に止まるものであり、個別具体的なケースに関する法的アドバイスを想定したものではありません。本ニュースレターの内容につきま しては、一切の責任を負わないものとさせて頂きます。法律・裁判例に関する情報及びその対応等については本ニュースレターのみに依拠されるべきでなく、必要に応じて別途弁護士のアドバイスをお受け頂ければと存じます。 否認権についてのおさらい（ある裁判例を題材に） １ はじめに 破産、民事再生といった法的倒産手続を論じるにおいて、 切っても切れない関係にあるのが、「否認」あるいは「否認権」 です。 特に、ある債務者に対して債権を有する債権者の立場に 立ってみれば、債務者が経営の危機に瀕していることを知っ たとすれば、どういったことを考えるでしょうか。おそらく大部分 の債権者は、何とか自分は損をしないようにと、我先にでも債 権回収をしたいと考えられるのではないでしょうか。

In a recent judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court“) in the case of P. Mohanraj & Ors. Vs. M/S Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd¹, it has been held that the declaration of a moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC“) covers criminal proceedings for dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“NI Act“). In doing so, the Supreme Court has widened and settled the scope of the applicability of Section 14 of the IBC.