Early evening on February 23, 2021, Belk Inc. and its affiliates (collectively, “Belk”) filed their Chapter 11 bankruptcy petitions in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas. Less than seventeen hours later, Judge Marvin Isgur confirmed Belk’s pre-packed plan of reorganization. Belk is not the first Chapter 11 bankruptcy case to accomplish plan confirmation within the first twenty-four hours after filing a petition, and it certainly won’t be the last. In 2019, Sungard Availability Services Capital, Inc.
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.
Directors of companies have been facing, and continue to face, extremely challenging circumstances due to the financial impact of the coronavirus pandemic. The decisions they have taken through the pandemic to date have been made against a backdrop of unknowns: unknown closure durations, unknown projections and uncertain futures.
New Amendment to the Israeli Insolvency Law – grant of the option for a stay of proceedings against a corporation for the purpose of approving a debt arrangement without the appointment of an external officeholder to replace the company’s management
On 4 March 2021, an amendment to the Israeli Insolvency and Rehabilitation Law (Amendment number 4 – Temporary Provisions – the New Coronavirus) 2021 (“Temporary Provisions”) was published. This Temporary Provisions will become effective on 18 March 2021.
The highest profile duty to consult case this past year was the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in Coldwater First Nation v. Canada (Attorney General), 2020 FCA 34, relating to the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project (TMX Project). This was a judicial review of the federal Cabinet’s decision to approve the TMX Project for the second time subject to numerous conditions. The TMX Project involves the twinning and expansion of an existing pipeline from Edmonton, Alberta to Burnaby, British Columbia.
What are the principal insolvency procedures for companies in your jurisdiction?
Domestic Procedures
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) was enacted to enable corporate insolvency resolution of financially stressed corporate debtors in a time bound manner, so as to maximise the value of their assets. The decision to rehabilitate or liquidate a corporate debtor lies with the committee of creditors (Committee), comprising the corporate debtor’s financial creditors. The Code allows the Committee sufficient freedom and flexibility to explore, negotiate and, subsequently, choose the most suitable option for the corporate debtor.
The case in question is CIMB Bank Bhd v. World Fuel Services (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2021] SGCA 19. The decision was delivered on 5 March 2021 by the Singapore Court of Appeal.
The judgment addresses issues surrounding claims by a bank under assignments and other security documents over rights in and receivables under commodities supply contracts, and overturns the Singapore High Court decision in CIMB Bank Bhd v. World Fuel Services (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2020] SGHC 117.
Summary