February, 2024 For Private Circulation - Educational & Informational Purpose Only A BRIEFING ON LEGAL MATTERS OF CURRENT INTEREST KEY HIGHLIGHTS ⁎ Supreme Court: Nomination process under the Companies Act, 1956/ Companies Act, 2013 does not override succession laws. ⁎ Supreme Court: Statutory set-off or insolvency set-off inapplicable to Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. ⁎ Bombay High Court: High Court upholds the termination of an employee stating that freedom of speech and expression cannot be allowed beyond reasonableness.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the landmark RPS Infrastructure Ltd vs. Mukul Sharma[1]judgement, once again delved into the issue of claims being made beyond the statutorily prescribed timelines in a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”).

Nilsson & Anor v Iqbal & Anor [2024] EWHC 49 (Ch) was an application by the joint trustees in bankruptcy of Mohammed Babar Iqbal for a declaration as to the beneficial ownership and an order for possession and sale of his former matrimonial home, Southview, Pollards Hill East in London. Mr Iqbal, the first respondent, did not appear to resist the trustees’ claim. The second respondent, Mrs Iqbal, did. She was his former wife under Islamic law.

One of the significant risks that creditors weigh when deciding whether to lend money is bankruptcy risk: can the borrower use the bankruptcy laws to discharge the debt or compel the creditor to accept less than it bargained for? In the sovereign debt market, it has been an article of faith for creditors that states cannot file for bankruptcy and obtain such relief. But a recent ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York—Hamilton Reserve Bank v.

In Re Tucker, Quintis Leasing Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1673, the administrators of a company successfully obtained orders from the Federal Court modifying the operation of section 443B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

On 23 January 2024, Snowden LJ handed down the Court of Appeal's judgment in the Adler Restructuring Plan case - AGPS Bondco plc - overturning the sanctioning of the Plan by the High Court in April 2023.

Debtors in non-U.S. bankruptcy or restructuring proceedings commonly seek to shield their U.S. assets from creditor collection efforts by seeking "recognition" of those proceedings in the United States in a case under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code. If a U.S. bankruptcy court recognizes the debtor's foreign proceeding, the Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay prevents creditor collection efforts, including the commencement or continuation of any U.S. litigation involving the debtor or its U.S. assets. A U.S.

On 29 January 2024, the Honourable Madam Justice Linda Chan made a winding-up order against China Evergrande Group (“Company”), setting into motion one of Hong Kong’s largest liquidations. Parties at the hearing were represented by three senior counsel and three juniors from DVC.

The Company is the ultimate investment holding company of Evergrande Real Estate Group, which is one of China’s largest and most indebted property developers.

In a 2021 ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit revived nearly 100 lawsuits seeking to recover fraudulent transfers made as part of the Madoff Ponzi scheme. In one of the latest chapters in that resurrected litigation, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held in Picard v. ABN AMRO Bank NV (In re Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC), 654 B.R. 224 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.

第１ はじめに

破産法６７条は、破産債権者が、破産手続開始時点で破産 者に債務を負担している場合の相殺を、原則、認めています。 相殺の担保的機能に対する期待を保護するためといわれま す。

他方、破産手続の基本原則である債権者平等を損う相殺 は禁じられています。たとえば破産法７１条１項２号は、「支払 不能になった後に契約によって負担する債務を専ら破産債権 をもってする相殺に供する目的で破産者の財産の処分を内 容とする契約を破産者との間で…締結することにより破産者 に対して債務を負担した場合であって、当該契約の締結の当 時、支払不能であったことを知っていたとき」は、相殺できない と定めています。これは、破産者と破産債権者との新たな取引 等で破産債権者に債務が発生すると、破産者が債権取得の 対価を代物弁済に供したのと同視できる場合があるため、支 払不能後の代物弁済が偏頗行為否認の対象となることとの 均衡を図るものといわれます。