When executing public M&A transactions, dealmakers need to understand local market practice as well as the local regulatory environment.
Budniok v Adjudicator, Insolvency Service [2017] EWHC 368 (Ch)
Chief Registrar Baister overturned the Adjudicator's decision in refusing to grant a Bankruptcy Order where the Debtor's COMI was an issue.
Mr Budniok, a German citizen who had recently moved to London, applied online for a Bankruptcy Order in England. After several requests for further information, the Adjudicator was not satisfied Mr Budniok's centre of main interests ("COMI") was in England and as such refused the application. Mr Budniok appealed.
The decision of the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands (‘the Cayman Court’) to grant common law recognition and assistance to liquidators appointed by the High Court of Hong Kong (‘the Hong Kong Court’) over an exempted Cayman Islands incorporated company – without parallel insolvency proceedings in Cayman – is likely to be welcomed widely by insolvency practitioners and lawyers involved in cross-border restructuring and insolvency in common law jurisdictions.
Re Joint Provisional Liquidators of Moody Technology Holdings Ltd [2020] HKCFI 416
The Hong Kong Court has explained why there is no inconsistency between: (a) its domestic insolvency law which does not permit the appointment of provisional liquidators purely for the purposes of restructuring the company; and (b) common law recognition of foreign "soft-touch" provisional liquidators.
What is a soft-touch provisional liquidator?
Covid-19 has brought about much uncertainty for businesses worldwide and it is timely for a special edition of Going Concerns to provide a "survival guide" in the following jurisdictions Singapore, the People's Republic of China ("PRC"), Hong Kong, United Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates ("UAE"). This special edition will also touch on recent legislation and stimulus packages introduced by governments of the above (where applicable) in response to the Covid-19 outbreak, which will impact both creditors and debtors.
Survival guide
2017 Proskauer Annual Review and Outlook for Hedge Funds, Private Equity Funds and
Other Private Funds
2017 Proskauer Annual Review and Outlook for Hedge Funds, Private Equity
Funds and Other Private Funds
The following annual review and outlook (Annual Review) is a summary of some of the significant changes and developments that occurred in the past year and certain recommended practices that investment advisers to hedge funds, private equity funds and other private funds (collectively, private funds) should consider when preparing for 2018.
Sit Kwong Lam v Petrolimex Singapore Pte. Ltd [2019] HKCA 1220案 (裁决日期:2019年11月1日)
But Ka Chon v Interactive Brokers LLC [2019] 5 HKC 238案 (裁决日期:2019年8月2日)
在Lasmos Limited v Southwest Pacific Bauxite (HK) Limited [2018] HKCFI 426一案中,当案件所涉债务是一项仲裁协议的标的时,公司法庭改变了原先在这种情况下如何裁定清盘程序的做法(被称为“Lasmos裁决”)。在近期的两起破产案件中,上诉法庭对Lasmos裁决发表了附带意见。
Lasmos案之前的裁决
上海华信国际集团有限公司(在中国大陆清算)[2020] HKCFI 167 (裁决日期:2020年1月13日)
这是香港法院首次向中国大陆法院指定的一家中国大陆公司的管理人发出承认令的案件。该案还考虑如果在送达第三债务人暂准令(garnishee order nisi)后,破产令在外国颁布,此时是否应将第三债务人暂准令转为绝对命令。
案件背景
上海华信国际集团有限公司(以下简称为“CEFC”)是一家在中国大陆注册成立的投资控股公司,是一家企业集团的一部分,该企业集团的业务包括资本融资、石油精炼和基础设施。 2019年11月,上海市第三中级人民法院(以下简称为“上海法院”)下令CEFC破产清算,并指定了联合管理人(以下简称为“管理人”)。
CEFC的资产包括对其在香港地区的子公司上海华信集团(香港)有限公司(以下简称为“香港子公司”)的重大债权,该子公司正在清算中。CEFC已就该债权提供债务证明。
This article considers the landmark case by the Hong Kong Court of First Instance, in Joint and Several Liquidators of CEFC Shanghai International Group Ltd [2020] HKCFI 167. It is a significant step that the Hong Kong Courts have taken, enhancing cross-border insolvency cooperation between Mainland China and Hong Kong.
Facts
China Lumena New Materials Corp (in provisional liquidation) [2020] HKCFI 338 (decision made on 23 January 2020 and reasons given on 4 March 2020)
This is the first reported scheme of arrangement in Hong Kong seeking to compromise debt governed by PRC law. Under the Gibbs Rule, a foreign composition does not discharge a debt unless it is discharged under the law governing the debt. In this case, the Hong Kong Court considered an exception to the Gibbs Rule and more generally the principles of sanctioning a scheme.
Background