مقدمة
إسقاط الديون هو موضوع ذو أهمية كبيرة، خاصة للأفراد والشركات الذين يواجهون صعوبات مالية قد تؤثر على استقرارهم. وقد أتاحت قوانين دولة الإمارات العربية المتحدة الحديثة، وكذلك بعض القوانين الدولية، إطارًا قانونيًا واضحًا لإسقاط الديون أو تخفيفها. تتناول هذه المقالة الإجراءات القانونية المتاحة، مع التركيز على التشريعات الإماراتية والتشريعات الدولية، إضافة إلى عرض بعض الحالات القانونية والأمثلة العملية.
أولاً: إسقاط الديون وفقًا لقانون الإمارات العربية المتحدة
قانون الإفلاس في الإمارات (القانون الاتحادي رقم 9 لسنة 2016)
Situations Partner Kai Zeng in London Kai Zeng, who advises on cross-border restructurings and special situations matters, has joined the firm in London as a partner in the Restructuring Department and Finance and Hybrid Capital & Special Situations groups.
Kai advises sponsors, debtors, creditors and strategic investors on restructurings of stressed and distressed businesses, as well as hedge and credit funds, investments banks and private equity firms on their review and diligence of European investment opportunities in par, stressed and distressed transactions.
自主清算程序相对更加灵活，可根据实际情况灵活调整清算策略，因此退出效率会更高。破产清算需要根据企业破产法的规定履行相应的程序流程并受法院监督，清产核资、拍卖处置资产也是时间不可控的程序，原则上破产清算周期更长。尽管如此，从破产管理人的选派程序和破产清算的申请流程看，破产管理人由法院指定，而后从破产申请到清算程序终止的一系列工作，均由破产管理人负责开展，公司股东工作量极大减少。
图：源自投中网
虽然过去五年国有资本的参股投资行为在投资金额上并不领先，但其项目数量远超并购及新股发行认购行为。与此相对应的是，国务院国资委于2023年6月23日发布了《国有企业参股管理暂行办法》（国资发改革规〔2023〕41号）（简称“暂行办法”），该办法对国有资本的投资、管理、退出进行了规范，标志着国资监管向强化国有企业参股管理迈进了一大步。《暂行办法》将适用范围扩大至所有国资委履行出资人职责的企业及其子企业，而不仅局限于中央企业[1]。
在投资方面，该办法对国有资本进行了谦抑化规范，严控非主业投资，例如第六条要求国有资产投资“坚持聚焦主责主业，符合企业发展战略规划，严控非主业投资，不得通过参股等方式开展投资项目负面清单规定的禁止类业务”。
In a much-anticipated decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently held that unsecured noteholders’ claims against a debtor for certain “Applicable Premiums” were the “economic equivalent” to unmatured interest and, therefore, not recoverable under section 502(b)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code.
Is it Groundhog Day for private equity backed companies struggling to cope with higher interest rates, or is it different this time? The attempts to curb inflation flowing from the re-opening of the global economy after the Covid pandemic and the war in Ukraine have seen interest rates rise globally. In this article we look back at the response to financial distress in private equity backed companies during the global financial crisis of 2007-2009 and ask if it is different this time?
Parties structuring certain financial transactions to comply with the Bankruptcy Code safe harbor provisions, including protections from the avoidance powers in Section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code,1 must be cognizant of recent case law prescribing the identity of counterparties within the ambit of the provisions.
In the March 2024 edition of the Restructuring Department Bulletin, we highlight recent decisions and developments impacting the restructuring arena and share the latest news on the Paul, Weiss Restructuring Department.
When leveraged buyouts (“LBOs”) fail, the selling shareholders are litigation targets. A common suit is a claim by a bankruptcy trustee asserting constructive fraudulent transfer claims seeking to claw-back payments to the selling shareholders from the loan proceeds that financed the LBO.
One year ago, we wrote that 2022 would be remembered in the corporate bankruptcy world for the "crypto winter" that descended in November 2022 with the spectacular collapse of FTX Trading Ltd., Alameda Research, and approximately 130 other affiliated companies that ignited the meltdown of many other platforms, exchanges, lenders, and mining operations because they did business with FTX.
The scope of the Bankruptcy Code's "safe harbor" shielding certain securities, commodity, or forward-contract payments from avoidance as fraudulent transfers has long been a magnet for controversy, particularly after the U.S. Supreme Court suggested (but did not hold) in Merit Mgmt. Grp., LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc., 138 S. Ct.