On Wednesday, the Court of Final Appeal ("CFA") reversed the lower courts' decision in the Yung Kee case¹ , holding that the Hong Kong court has jurisdiction to order the winding up of Yung Kee Holdings Limited (the "Company"), a holding company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands and not registered in Hong Kong.

In Ritchie Capital Mgmt., LLC v. Stoebner, 779 F.3d 857 (8th Cir. 2015), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a bankruptcy court’s decision that transfers of trademark patents were avoidable under section 548(a)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code and Minnesota state law because they were made with the intent to defraud creditors.

On 11 June 2014, the Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China ("PRC" or "China")  handed down its ruling in the case of Sino-environment Technology Group Limited  ("Sino-environment") v Thumb Env-Tech Group (Fujian) Co., Ltd ("Thumb").

In 2014, the law of privilege was considered from various angles, with the year closing on a Court  of Final Appeal decision emphasising the primacy of legal professional privilege ("LPP") as an  absolute right guaranteed by the Basic Law of Hong Kong.

While the cases outlined below generally provide comfort that the law of privilege in Hong Kong  holds strong, we offer a few practical points to help safeguard the privilege of legal advice:

The Court of Appeal has declined jurisdiction to wind up Yung Kee Holdings Limited (the "Company"), a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands ("BVI"), upholding the decision of Harris J at first instance that the Company did not have "sufficient connection" with Hong Kong. 

The new Hong Kong Companies Ordinance is planned to come into operation in the first quarter of 2014. This wholesale renovation of the law governing the operation of companies in Hong Kong repeals almost all of the existing provisions of the Companies Ordinance with a few exceptions, including the existing insolvency and winding-up provisions. These will remain in their current form and be retitled as the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance.

The U.S. Supreme Court in RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, ___ S. Ct. ___, 2012 WL 1912197 (May 29, 2012), held that a debtor may not confirm a chapter 11 "cramdown" plan that provides for the sale of collateral free and clear of existing liens, but does not permit a secured creditor to credit-bid at the sale. The unanimous ruling written by Justice Scalia (with Justice Kennedy recused) resolved a split among the Third, Fifth, and Seventh Circuits.

On December 12, 2011, the Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in a case raising the question of whether a debtor's chapter 11 plan is confirmable when it proposes an auction sale of a secured creditor's assets free and clear of liens without permitting that creditor to "credit bid" its claims but instead provides the creditor with the "indubitable equivalent" of its secured claim. RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, No. 11-166 (cert. granted Dec. 12, 2011).

Earlier this year, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit decided in In re Lett that objections to a bankruptcy court’s approval of a cram-down chapter 11 plan on the basis of noncompliance with the “absolute priority rule” may be raised for the first time on appeal. The Eleventh Circuit ruled that “[a] bankruptcy court has an independent obligation to ensure that a proposed plan complies with [the] absolute priority rule before ‘cramming’ that plan down upon dissenting creditor classes,” whether or not stakeholders “formally” object on that basis.