Hong Kong and the Mainland have agreed a new co-operation mechanism for cross-border insolvency. Under the agreement, liquidators from Hong Kong may apply to Mainland courts for recognition of insolvency proceedings in Hong Kong, whilst bankruptcy administrators from the Mainland can apply to the Hong Kong High Court for recognition of bankruptcy proceedings in the Mainland.

Hong Kong and the Mainland have agreed a new co-operation mechanism for cross-border insolvency.

Section 365(h) of the Bankruptcy Code provides special protection for tenants if a trustee or chapter 11 debtor-in-possession ("DIP") rejects an unexpired lease under which the debtor was the lessor by giving the tenant the option of retaining possession of the leased premises. Although the provision clearly describes what rights a tenant has if it makes such an election, it does not unequivocally address the extent of the electing tenant's obligations under the rejected lease or any related agreements. The U.S.

The ability of a bankruptcy trustee or chapter 11 debtor-in-possession ("DIP") to avoid fraudulent transfers is an important tool promoting the bankruptcy policies of equality of distribution among creditors and maximizing the property included in the estate.

In a pair of significant judgments issued on the same day, Re China Huiyuan Juice Group Ltd. [2020] HKCFI 2940 and FDG Electric Vehicles Ltd. [2020] HKCFI 2931, the Honorable Mr. Justice Harris has once again issued highly relevant and timely guidance on key cross-border insolvency issues.

The ability of a bankruptcy trustee or chapter 11 debtor-in-possession ("DIP") to obtain credit or financing during the course of a bankruptcy case is often crucial to the debtor's prospects for either maintaining operations pending the development of a confirmable plan of reorganization or facilitating an orderly liquidation designed to maximize asset values for the benefit of all stakeholders. In a chapter 11 case, financing (and/or cash infusions through recapitalization) also is often a key component of the reorganized debtor's ability to operate post-bankruptcy.

In another groundbreaking decision, the Hong Kong court in Re Ando Credit Ltd [2020] HKCFI 2775, has appointed provisional liquidators over a Hong Kong-incorporated investment manager for the express purpose of allowing the liquidators to seek recognition in the Mainland. The judgment is the latest in a series of judgments facilitating cross-border recognition and enforcement of assets and takes the degree of potential cooperation envisaged to a new level.

Application unopposed

Recent missed payments by companies including by one of China's largest coal companies, Yongcheng Coal and Electricity Holding Group, based in Henan, have shaken investors' faith that state-owned enterprises (SOEs) enjoy implicit backing from the authorities, irrespective of their underlying performance. As corporates issue new bonds to pay off old debts as they fall due, thereby 'kicking the can down the road' it is feared that more defaults could follow. Yields on some bonds are reported to have risen to 34 percent, an indicator of the perceived increased risk.

The Hong Kong government is proposing much-anticipated legislation for the introduction of a corporate rescue procedure and insolvent trading regime. Hong Kong has, for years, struggled to introduce a statutory corporate rescue procedure (CRP), having previously made unsuccessful attempts in 2000-2001, 2008-2009, and 2014. Now – with COVID-19 severely impacting the economy – the government has finally tabled the Companies (Corporate Rescue) Bill.

Introduction
Disallowance of Claims of Avoidable Transfer Recipients
Firestar Diamond
The Bankruptcy Court's Ruling
Outlook

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently added some weight to the majority rule on a hot-button issue for claims traders. InIn re Firestar Diamond, Inc., 615 B.R. 161 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2020), the court ruled that a transferred claim can be disallowed under section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code even if the entity holding the claim is not the recipient of a voidable transfer. According to the court, claim disallowance under section 502(d) "rests on the claim and not the claim holder."