A bedrock principle underlying chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code is that creditors, shareholders, and other stakeholders should be provided with adequate information to make an informed decision to either accept or reject a chapter 11 plan. For this reason, the Bankruptcy Code provides that any "solicitation" of votes for or against a plan must be preceded or accompanied by stakeholders' receipt of a "disclosure statement" approved by the bankruptcy court explaining the background of the case as well as the key provisions of the chapter 11 plan.
In Short
The Situation: The U.S. Supreme Court considered whether § 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code, which limits a party's ability to undo an asset transfer made to a good-faith purchaser in a bankruptcy case, is jurisdictional.
The ability of a bankruptcy trustee or chapter 11 debtor-in-possession ("DIP") to assume, assume and assign, or reject executory contracts and unexpired leases is an important tool designed to promote a "fresh start" for debtors and to maximize the value of the bankruptcy estate for the benefit of all stakeholders. However, the Bankruptcy Code establishes strict requirements for the assumption or assignment of contracts and leases.
“…it is fallacious and unrealistic for the Company to assume that the value of the Haitian Shares remained the same from February to August 2019. Between February and August 2019, Haitian Energy had published no less than nine announcements suggest that the financial condition of Haitian Energy was in a state of flux, and that the value of the Haitian Shares was susceptible to fluctuation.”
– William Wong SC (Deputy High Court Judge in Re Victor River Ltd)
INTRODUCTION
Madoff
On April 19, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal of a landmark 2019 decision issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit regarding the applicability of the Bankruptcy Code's safe harbor for certain securities, commodity, or forward contract payments to prevent the avoidance in bankruptcy of $8.3 billion in payments made to the shareholders of Tribune Co. as part of its 2007 leveraged buyout ("LBO").
引言
在Re China Huiyuan Group Ltd [2020] HKCFI 2940一案中,原訟法庭拒絕對一家在香港上市的開曼公司進行清盤,因為原訟法庭認為,呈請人未能證明在作出清盤令後,債權人確實有可能獲得實際利益。
案情
SDFIII Holdings Limited(以下簡稱「呈請人」)以資不抵債為由,發出對China Huiyuan Juice Group Limited(以下簡稱「該公司」)進行清盤的呈請。各方對該債務沒有爭議。
該公司在開曼群島註冊成立,並在香港聯交所主板上市。該公司的資產包括在英屬處女群島註冊成立的附屬公司的所有權,該等附屬公司在中國內地擁有附屬公司,而該等附屬公司又擁有該公司的相關資產,並開展生產及其他業務。
對該公司無爭議的是,該公司已資不抵債。該公司要求押後該呈請,以推進該公司的債務重組。由於股份已暫停買賣,而該公司亦面臨潛在的退市問題,該公司認為重組是令集團業務重回正軌的唯一方法,長遠而言,對該公司的債權人是有利的。
因此,法院將裁定是否立即發出清盤令或批准延期。
爭議點
爭議點如下:-
Introduction
In Re China Huiyuan Group Ltd [2020] HKCFI 2940, the Court of First Instance declined to wind up a Hong Kong-listed Cayman company as the Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that there was a real possibility of a tangible benefit to creditors upon the making of a winding up order.
Facts
SDF III Holdings Limited (the “Petitioner”) issued a petition to wind-up China Huiyuan Juice Group Limited (the “Company”) on the grounds of insolvency. The debt is not disputed.
On October 26, 2020, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas issued a long-awaited ruling on whether natural gas exploration and production company Ultra Petroleum Corp. ("UPC") must pay a make-whole premium to noteholders under its confirmed chapter 11 plan and whether the noteholders are entitled to postpetition interest on their claims pursuant to the "solvent-debtor exception." On remand from the U.S.