The High Court in Hong Kong recently examined the circumstances in which a liquidator was able to depart from their implied duty not to disclose documents obtained from third parties under statute or in the furtherance of their legal duty.

The Court of First Instance in Hong Kong recently provided a timely reminder that the jurisdiction to wind up a foreign company is an exorbitant one and therefore winding up petitions and applications for leave to serve them out of the Hong Kong jurisdiction must be properly thought through and drafted before the Court will consider giving leave to serve out, and they may be liable to be struck out entirely if not.

The case of Lau Siu Hung and Another v Krzysztof Marszalek and Another [2013] HKEC 936 appears to be the first authority in Hong Kong on the effect an annulment of a bankruptcy order has on debts which remain unproven when an annulment order is made.  On 17 June 2013, the Court of First Instance held that an annulment of bankruptcy cannot prohibit a creditor, who has not proved his debts before, to obtain relief from the court after the annu

In a judgment handed down on 6 March 2013, the Hong Kong High Court elaborated on the guiding principles the court will follow when determining whether or not it should exercise its 'exorbitant' jurisdiction to wind up an unregistered overseas company 'which prima facie is beyond the limits of territoriality'.

On July 6, 2012, in Lightsquared LP (Re),¹ the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the "Ontario Court"), released reasons that clarify the criteria for the identification of the centre of main interest ("COMI") of an applicant seeking recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings as "Foreign Main Proceedings" pursuant to Section 46 of the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act ("CCAA").²

In Rubin v Eurofinance SA and New Cap Reinsurance Corporation (in liquidation) and another v AE Grant and others [2012] UKSC 46, the UK Supreme Court held that:  

The British Columbia Supreme Court recently reviewed the considerations to be applied on an application by a secured creditor to lift a stay of proceedings granted in an initial order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (the "CCAA"). In Re Azure Dynamics Corp.,¹ Madam Justice Fitzpatrick confirmed that the classic "doomed to fail" argument will not be persuasive where the applicant creditor is not prejudiced, and where the objectives of the CCAA are best served, by allowing the stay of proceedings to continue.

background

On May 14, 2012, in 9-Ball Interests Inc. v. Traditional Life Sciences Inc.¹, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the "Court") rendered another decision that demonstrates the importance of full disclosure and transparency in applications made to the Court.

On April 7, 2011, the Ontario Court of Appeal rendered a decision in the restructuring proceedings involving Indalex Limited (Indalex) under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) that is inconsistent with prior non-binding comments by the same court relating to the priority of certain pension claims. The decision has material implications for institutional financiers that lend against the inventory, accounts receivable or cash collateral of businesses with Ontario regulated defined benefit pension plans and for the access of those businesses to secured credit.

In the recent decision in Re Xerium Technologies Inc.1, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice recognized an order made by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware that confirmed the debtor’s pre-packaged Chapter 11 plan of reorganization. The decision provides useful guidance on how the Ontario Court may consider similar applications in the future. Many will take comfort from the fact that the decision revisits a number of relevant factors established in case law that pre-dates the current formulation of the cross-border provisions that make up Part IV of the CCA A.