In a long-awaited development of cross-border insolvency cooperation between Hong Kong and Mainland China, the Hong Kong Court has granted recognition and assistance to Mainland liquidators for the first time in Joint and Several Liquidators of CEFC Shanghai International Group Ltd [2020] HKCFI 167.
Background
The Court of First Instance has recently helpfully summarised the legal position on schemes of arrangement under both Hong Kong law and English law. Notably, it has called for further development in cross-border coordination in order to avoid the trouble of parallel insolvency proceedings and it has raised a red flag in relation to detailed disclosure of restructuring costs: Da Yu Financial Holdings Limited [2019] HKCFI 2531.
On May 20, 2019, the Supreme Court settled a circuit split concerning whether a debtor’s rejection of a trademark license under § 365 of the Bankruptcy Code “deprives the licensee of its rights to use the trademark.” In a decision written by Justice Kagan, the Supreme Court held that while a debtor-licensor’s rejection of a trademark license results in a pre-petition breach, it does not constitute a rescission of the contract, and thus the licensee may retain the rights granted to it under the license.
In Swiss Cosmeceutics (Asia) Ltd [2019] HKCFI 336, Mr Justice Harris of the Hong Kong Court of First Instance declined to wind up a company despite it failing to establish a bona fide defence on substantial grounds. Mr Justice Harris commented on the difficulties presented by sporadic record keeping, and reiterated the principle that the burden of proof lies with the company to demonstrate a bona fide defence on substantial grounds, despite the existence of anomalies in the petitioner’s claim.
Facts
In a highly international cross-border restructuring, the High Court of Hong Kong has refused to assist the New York-based Chapter 11 trustee of a Singaporean subsidiary of the Cayman-incorporated Peruvian business China Fishery Group (“CFG”).
On 20 June 2018, the Indian Government released a suggested draft chapter on cross-border insolvency to be included into the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code). This addresses a missing link in the ambitious reforms of the Indian insolvency framework and is to be welcomed.
It is timely, with further reform of the new Indian Bankruptcy Code (IBC) in prospect, to outline our thoughts on some of the current issues on which various market participants have requested an understanding of the approach and learnings of overseas practitioners.
Introduction
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) has just been passed by both Houses of the Indian Parliament. The key objectives of the Indian government in driving this legislation forward were to improve India‘s poor ranking on the ease of doing business index created by the World Bank Group and to stimulate the growth of the Indian capital markets, and the stated intention of the Code is to replace the relevant insolvency, restructuring and winding up provisions which are spread over a number of Indian statutes.
Our role
In a case that should cause lenders heartburn, the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina recently ruled that common provisions in a Chapter 11 plan prevented the debtor’s lender from executing on a judgment against the non-debtor owner of the debtor.1 Biltmore is a corporation2 that operates manufactured home parks and sells and rents manufactured homes. McGee is the president and controlling shareholder of Biltmore. Biltmore filed Chapter 11 in January of 2011, and TD Bank was Biltmore’s largest secured creditor.
Bankruptcy Judge Michael Lynn of the Northern District of Texas recently issued a noteworthy opinion in In re Village at Camp Bowie I, L.P. that addresses two important Chapter 11 confirmation issues. Judge Lynn determined that a plan that artificially impaired a class of claims in order to meet the requirements of section 1129(a)(10) had not been proposed in bad faith and did not violate the requirements of section 1129(a). In his ruling, Judge Lynn also applied the Supreme Court’s cram-down “interest”1 rate teachings in Till v.