Introduction
Introduction
The Supreme Court (SC) in Global Credit Capital Limited & Anr v. Sach Marketing Private Limited & Anr, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 649 upheld the judgment and order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi Bench (NCLAT), dated 07 October 2021 (Impugned Order) by which Sach Marketing Private Limited (Sach) was held to be a ‘financial creditor’ of Mount Shivalik Industries Limited, the corporate debtor, (CD) in corporate insolvency resolution proceedings under the provisions of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).
簡介
最近在Re Carnival Group International Holdings Ltd [2022] HKCFI 2668一案中，本所代表呈請人成功申請將嘉年華國際控股有限公司（「該公司」）清盤。該公司是一家在香港聯合交易所（「聯交所」）上市的百慕達公司。在本案中，法院澄清及確認其將外國公司清盤的司法管轄權。此外，法院命令就訟費問題將該公司董事（「董事」）加入為被告人，因此日後假如公司在欠缺理據的情況下反對清盤呈請，董事或須就呈請人及支持清盤的債權人的訟費承擔個人責任。
背景
該公司在百慕達註冊成立，並根據香港前《公司條例》第XI部註冊為海外公司，其股份在聯交所上市，股份代號 996。該公司是一家投資控股公司，持有在香港、中國內地及英屬維爾京群島註冊成立的附屬公司（統稱「該集團」）。該集團主要在中國內地經營主題式休閒及消費業務。
Introduction
简介
最近在Re Carnival Group International Holdings Ltd [2022] HKCFI 2668一案中，本所代表呈请人成功申请将嘉年华国际控股有限公司（「该公司」）清盘。该公司是一家在香港联合交易所（「联交所」）上市的百慕达公司。在本案中，法院澄清及确认其将外国公司清盘的司法管辖权。此外，法院命令就讼费问题将该公司董事（「董事」）加入为被告人，因此日后假如公司在欠缺理据的情况下反对清盘呈请，董事或须就呈请人及支持清盘的债权人的讼费承担个人责任。
背景
该公司在百慕达注册成立，并根据香港前《公司条例》第XI部注册为海外公司，其股份在联交所上市，股份代号 996。该公司是一家投资控股公司，持有在香港、中国内地及英属维尔京群岛注册成立的附属公司（统称「该集团」）。该集团主要在中国内地经营主题式休闲及消费业务。
Recently, by a judgment dated 30 May 2022, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Courtin the case of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus A. Balakrishnan & Anr (Judgment dated 30 May 2022 in Civil Appeal No. 689 of 2021) held that a recovery certificate issued the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1992 (RDB Act) would qualify as a “financial debt” under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), and give rise to a fresh cause of action under section 7 of the IBC.
Facts and Background
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently ruled in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtors’ attempt to shield contributions to a 401(k) retirement account from “projected disposable income,” therefore making such amounts inaccessible to the debtors’ creditors.[1] For the reasons explained below, the Sixth Circuit rejected the debtors’ arguments.
Case Background
A statute must be interpreted and enforced as written, regardless, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, “of whether a court likes the results of that application in a particular case.” That legal maxim guided the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning in a recent decision[1] in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtor’s repeated filings and requests for dismissal of his bankruptcy cases in order to avoid foreclosure of his home.