Introduction

简介

英国和香港的法例均规定，债权人只可以就其应获支付的算定金额提出破产呈请，但相关法例条文并无界定何谓「算定金额」（liquidated sum）。在Re Dusoruth (a bankrupt) Dusoruth v Orca Finance UK Ltd (in liquidation) [2022] EWHC 2346 (Ch) 一案中，英格兰及威尔斯商业及财产法庭（「法院」）澄清，复还不当得利的申索不论如何确切，仍不能被视为算定金额，因此不能成为破产呈请的依据。

背景

申请人是一名商人，亦是在英国、英属维尔京群岛及马尔他等多个司法管辖区注册的多间公司的最终拥有人。他以其中一家公司进行欺诈，游说富户投资，然后透过无抵押贷款将资金转移到他控制的其他公司。申请人被他其中一间正在清盘的公司（「答辩人」）基于以下债务提出破产呈请（「该破产呈请」），并于2020年11月被判定破产：

1.从答辩人的银行帐户支付，用于清偿申请人的个人信用卡帐单的361,899.73欧元；及

Introduction

When a company encounters financial difficulty, one of the ways to restructure its debts is by entering into a scheme of arrangement with its creditors. Under section 673 of the Companies Ordinance (Cap. 622), the Court may sanction a scheme of arrangement. The sanctioned scheme will be binding on the company and the creditors or class of creditors with whom the arrangement is proposed to be entered into.

簡介

一間公司陷入財政困難時，其中一個重組債務的方法是與債權人訂立債務償還安排（scheme of arrangement）。根據香港法例第622章《公司條例》第673條，法院有權認許債務償還安排。經法院認許的債務償還安排將對公司及擬訂立該安排的債權人或類別債權人具有約束力。

最近在Re Hong Kong Airlines Limited(香港航空有限公司) [2022] HKCFI 3792一案中，法院需考慮是否認許香港一間大型航空公司提出的債務償還安排計劃。

案情

香港航空有限公司（「該公司」）是一間提供客貨空運以及其他航空相關服務的香港公司。由於新冠病毒疫情對航空業界造成嚴重打擊，該公司的現金流周轉不靈，合共欠債約490億港元。除非該公司能將現時債務重組，否則很可能清盤。

简介

一间公司陷入财政困难时，其中一个重组债务的方法是与债权人订立债务偿还安排（scheme of arrangement）。根据香港法例第622章《公司条例》第673条，法院有权认许债务偿还安排。经法院认许的债务偿还安排将对公司及拟订立该安排的债权人或类别债权人具有约束力。

最近在Re Hong Kong Airlines Limited(香港航空有限公司) [2022] HKCFI 3792一案中，法院需考虑是否认许香港一间大型航空公司提出的债务偿还安排计划。

案情

香港航空有限公司（「该公司」）是一间提供客货空运以及其他航空相关服务的香港公司。由于新冠病毒疫情对航空业界造成严重打击，该公司的现金流周转不灵，合共欠债约490亿港元。除非该公司能将现时债务重组，否则很可能清盘。

Even before chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code was enacted in 2005 to govern cross-border bankruptcy proceedings, the enforceability of a foreign court order approving a restructuring plan that modified or discharged U.S. law-governed debt was well recognized under principles of international comity. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently reaffirmed this concept in In re Modern Land (China) Co., Ltd., 641 B.R. 768 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Courts disagree over whether a foreign bankruptcy case can be recognized under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code if the foreign debtor does not reside or have assets or a place of business in the United States. In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit staked out its position on this issue in Drawbridge Special Opportunities Fund LP v. Barnet (In re Barnet), 737 F.3d 238 (2d Cir. 2013), ruling that the provision of the Bankruptcy Code requiring U.S. residency, assets, or a place of business applies in chapter 15 cases as well as cases filed under other chapters.

The foundation of chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code and similar legislation enacted by other countries to govern cross-border bankruptcy cases is "comity" and cooperation among U.S. and foreign courts. The importance of these concepts was recently illustrated by a ruling handed down by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida. In In re Varig Logistica S.A., 2021 WL 5045684 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. Oct.

Despite the absence of any explicit directive in the Bankruptcy Code, it is well understood that a debtor must file a chapter 11 petition in good faith. The bankruptcy court can dismiss a bad faith filing "for cause," which has commonly been found to exist in cases where the debtor seeks chapter 11 protection as a tactic to gain an advantage in pending litigation. A ruling recently handed down by the U.S.

Chapter 15 petitions seeking recognition in the United States of foreign bankruptcy proceedings have increased significantly during the more than 16 years since chapter 15 was enacted in 2005. Among the relief commonly sought in such cases is discovery concerning the debtor's assets or asset transfers involving U.S.-based entities. A nonprecedential ruling recently handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has created a circuit split on the issue of whether discovery orders entered by a U.S. bankruptcy court in a chapter 15 case are immediately appealable.