Celsius’ retail borrowers finally have an answer on who owns the cryptocurrency they deposited into Celsius in exchange for a loan from Celsius – spoiler alert: on November 13, 2023 the bankruptcy court held that Celsius’ terms of service “clearly and unambiguously” gave Celsius ownership of retail borrowers’ cryptocurrency. The bankruptcy court’s decision follows its January 2023 decision which similarly held that the cryptocurrency of Celsius’ “Earn” customers also belonged to Celsius because the terms of service similarly unambiguously granted Celsius title ownership.
The Court of First Instance held in Re Up Energy Development Group Limited [2022] HKCFI 1329 that where the three core requirements for winding-up a foreign company under section 327(1) of the Companies (Winding up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap. 32) (CWUMPO) are satisfied, the mere fact that the foreign company has been ordered to be wound up by the court in its place of incorporation is not a ground for the Hong Kong court to decline the making of a winding up order.
A former listco
In Shandong Chenming Paper Holdings Limited v Arjowiggins HKK2 Limited [2022] HKCFA 11, the Court of Final Appeal has confirmed that the "leverage" created by the prospect of a winding-up – as opposed to the making of a winding-up order – provides a legitimate form of "benefit" for the purposes of satisfying the second of the three "core requirements" for winding up a foreign incorporated company in Hong Kong.
In a significant decision, the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court (Shenzhen court) has ordered formal recognition in the mainland for Hong Kong appointed liquidators. This is the first occasion on which a mainland court has formally recognized and granted assistance to Hong Kong liquidators, expressly granting them powers to deal with assets located in the mainland under the new insolvency co-operation mechanism concluded between Hong Kong and the mainland.
随着香港及内地就相互认可和协助破产程序及重组事务达成共识，一个新纪元到来了。从今往后，希望通过中国债务人位于香港的财产收回欠款的债权人，或是拥有内地财产的香港运营实体的债权人，终于在谈判桌前享有了话语权。
随着香港及内地就相互认可和协助破产程序及重组事务达成共识，一个新纪元到来了。从今往后，希望通过中国债务人位于香港的财产收回欠款的债权人，或是拥有内地财产的香港运营实体的债权人，终于在谈判桌前享有了话语权。
霍金路伟最新一期《投资中国：法律监管信息速递》专题系列将为您深度探秘下列安排：
The liquidity-fueled lull in restructuring activity provides both an interesting historical echo of the late 1990s and a useful opportunity for market participants to take note of a deceptively interesting opinion in Giuliano ex rel. Consolidated Bedding, Inc. v. L&P Financial Services Co. (In re Consolidated Bedding, Inc.), Case No. 19-50727, 2021 WL 2638594 (Bankr. D. Del. June 25, 2021) (Shannon, J.).
In Shameeka Ien v. TransCare Corp., et al. (In re TransCareCorp.), Case No. 16-10407, Adv. P. No. 16-01033 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2020) [D.I. 157], the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently refused to dismiss WARN Act claims against Patriarch Partners, LLC, private equity firm (“PE Firm“), and its owner, Lynn Tilton (“PE Owner“), resulting from the staggered chapter 7 bankruptcies of several portfolio companies, TransCare Corporation and its affiliates (collectively, the “Debtors“).
Joining three other bankruptcy courts, Judge Thuma of the District of New Mexico recently held that the rules issued by the Small Business Administration (“SBA“) that restrict bankrupt entities from participating in the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP“) violated the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, H.R. 748, P.L. 115-136 (the “CARES Act”), as well as section 525(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.
The Southern District of New York recently reminded us in In re Firestar Diamond, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-10509 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. April 22, 2019) (SHL) [Dkt. No. 1482] that equitable principles in bankruptcy often do not match those outside of bankruptcy. Indeed, bankruptcy decisions often place emphasis on equality of treatment amongst all creditors and are less concerned with inequities to individual creditors.