在最新的 Re USUM Investment Group Ltd[2026] HKCFI 1320 一案中，香港公司法庭就普通法下对内地重整程序的承认（recognition）与协助（assistance），处理了若干“新颖而重要的问题（Novel and Important Questions）”，包括：香港法庭是否有权承认经境外法院（本案为内地法院）批准的企业破产重整；如有，具体的协助范围包括哪些？
本案中，香港公司法庭最终批准了由重庆市第五中级人民法院委任的管理人（Administrators）在香港提出的申请。该判决为日后内地与香港跨境重整的处理方式提供了更清晰的、权威性的分析路径，并进一步强化香港作为普通法跨境破产／重整枢纽司法管辖区的定位。
事实背景
In Re USUM Investment Group Ltd[2026] HKCFI 1320, the Hong Kong Companies Court delivered a landmark judgment concerned with “novel and important questions as to whether the court has power to recognize a restructuring approved by a foreign court and, if so, the extent of such assistance”.
Notwithstanding that the requisite statutory majority was obtained in the relevant creditors’ scheme meeting, the Hong Kong Companies Court refused to sanction a scheme of arrangement propounded by a company that professed to be insolvent in a recent judgment [2024] HKCFI 2216.
In the recent decision of Foo Kian Beng v OP3 International Pte Ltd (in liquidation) [2024] SGCA 10 (dated 27 March 2024), the Singapore Court of Appeal upheld a director’s breach of duty by authorising the payment of a dividend and the repayment of a loan to himself. The decision, considering Sequana, sheds further important light on the directors’ duty to consider or act in the interest of the company’s creditors, coined as “creditor duty”.
The Facts – Briefly Stated
Federal appellate courts have traditionally applied a "person aggrieved" standard to determine whether a party has standing to appeal a bankruptcy court order or judgment. However, this standard, which requires a direct, adverse, and financial impact on a potential appellant, is derived from a precursor to the Bankruptcy Code and does not appear in the existing statute.
The court-fashioned doctrine of "equitable mootness" has frequently been applied to bar appeals of bankruptcy court orders under circumstances where reversal or modification of an order could jeopardize, for example, the implementation of a negotiated chapter 11 plan or related agreements and upset the expectations of third parties who have relied on the order.
On June 6, 2023, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas confirmed the chapter 11 plan of bedding manufacturer Serta Simmons Bedding, LLC and its affiliates (collectively, "Serta"). In confirming Serta's plan, the court held that a 2020 "uptier," or "position enhancement," transaction (the "2020 Transaction") whereby Serta issued new debt secured by a priming lien on its assets and purchased its existing debt from participating lenders at a discount with a portion of the proceeds did not violate the terms of Serta's 2016 credit agreement.
Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code's "safe harbor" preventing avoidance in bankruptcy of certain securities, commodity, or forward-contract payments has long been a magnet for controversy. Several noteworthy court rulings have been issued in bankruptcy cases addressing the application of the provision, including application to financial institutions, its preemptive scope, and its application to non-publicly traded securities.
Bankruptcy trustees and chapter 11 debtors-in-possession ("DIPs") frequently seek to avoid fraudulent transfers and obligations under section 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and state fraudulent transfer or other applicable nonbankruptcy laws because the statutory "look-back" period for avoidance under many nonbankruptcy laws exceeds the two-year period governing avoidance actions under section 548.
The finality of asset sales and other transactions in bankruptcy is an indispensable feature of U.S. bankruptcy law designed to maximize the value of a bankruptcy estate as expeditiously as possible for the benefit of all stakeholders. To promote such finality, section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code prohibits reversal or modification on appeal of an order authorizing a sale or lease to a "good-faith" purchaser or lessee unless the party challenging the sale obtains a stay pending appeal. What constitutes "good faith" has sometimes been disputed by the courts.