上海华信国际集团有限公司（在中国大陆清算）[2020] HKCFI 167 (裁决日期：2020年1月13日)

这是香港法院首次向中国大陆法院指定的一家中国大陆公司的管理人发出承认令的案件。该案还考虑如果在送达第三债务人暂准令（garnishee order nisi）后，破产令在外国颁布，此时是否应将第三债务人暂准令转为绝对命令。

案件背景

上海华信国际集团有限公司（以下简称为“CEFC”）是一家在中国大陆注册成立的投资控股公司，是一家企业集团的一部分，该企业集团的业务包括资本融资、石油精炼和基础设施。 2019年11月，上海市第三中级人民法院（以下简称为“上海法院”）下令CEFC破产清算，并指定了联合管理人（以下简称为“管理人”）。

CEFC的资产包括对其在香港地区的子公司上海华信集团（香港）有限公司（以下简称为“香港子公司”）的重大债权，该子公司正在清算中。CEFC已就该债权提供债务证明。

CEFC Shanghai International Group Limited (in Liquidation in the Mainland of the People’s Republic of China) [2020] HKCFI 167 (date of judgement 13 January 2020)

This is the first case in which the Hong Kong Court granted a recognition order to administrators of a PRC company appointed by a PRC Court. The case also considered whether a garnishee order nisi should be made absolute if a foreign bankruptcy order is made after the service of the garnishee order nisi.

Background

Sit Kwong Lam v Petrolimex Singapore Pte. Ltd [2019] HKCA 1220 (date of judgment 1 November 2019)

But Ka Chon v Interactive Brokers LLC [2019] 5 HKC 238 (date of judgment 2 August 2019)

The Companies Court has changed the approach in which winding up proceedings are handled when the alleged debt is the subject of an arbitration agreement in the case of Lasmos Limited v Southwest Pacific Bauxite (HK) Limited [2018] HKCFI 426. In two recent bankruptcy cases, the Court of Appeal made obiter comments on the Lasmos approach.

大禹金融控股有限公司（前称为China Agrotech Holdings Limited浩伦农业科技集团有限公司）（清盘中） [2019] HKCFI 2531 （判决日期2019年10月17日）

这是一宗关于对香港上市的离岸公司进行债务重组中获准并存债务偿还计划的案件。在债务偿还计划中，重组成本通常数额巨大，直接影响对计划债权人的回报。本案中，香港法院对使用并存债务偿还计划，以及重组成本和债权人回报之间的关系，提出了富有远见的意见。

背景情况

大禹金融控股有限公司（前称为China Agrotech Holdings Limited浩伦农业科技集团有限公司）（清盘中）（下称“公司”）成立于开曼群岛，并于香港联交所上市。公司自2015年初开始清盘，其上市状态是公司的唯一重大资产。公司大部分的债务均受香港法管辖。

清算人已找到了一名白衣骑士，以进行债务重组和恢复公司股份的交易。拟议重组计划涉及对公司股本的重构和向投资者发行新股，收益将用于支付收购新业务的费用、公司重组费用和部分解除公司负债。债权人回报率约为4.28%，在开曼群岛和香港开展并存债务偿还计划，预期实现债务重组。

This week’s edition of TGIF considers the landmark decision of the High Court in BMW Australia Ltd v Brewster; Westpac Banking Corporation v Lenthall[2019] HCA 45 and what it might mean for insolvency practitioners.

Decision

This week’s TGIF considers the latest decision in Arrium and the recent refusal by the Supreme Court of New South Wales to set aside, on Arrium’s application, a summons for examination to a former director.

What happened?

On 15 May 2019, a Registrar issued a summons for examination and orders for production to a former director of Arrium following an application by two shareholders of the company. The shareholders had been authorised as eligible applicants by the ASIC the previous year.

Da Yu Financial Holdings Limited (formerly known as China Agrotech Holdings Limited) (in liquidation) [2019] HKCFI 2531 (date of judgment 17 October 2019)

This week’s TGIF considers the decision in Adelaide Brighton Cement Limited v Concrete Supply Pty Ltd (Subject to Deed of Company Arrangement) (No 4)[2019] FCA 1846, where the Court terminated a deed of company arrangement in circumstances where the administrators had not undertaken sufficient investigations.

Background

On 4 November 2017, administrators were appointed to Concrete Supply Pty Ltd.

This week’s TGIF considers a recent application by a liquidator to the NSW Supreme Court for directions regarding the sale of trust property where the trust deed could not be found.

Background

This week’s TGIF considers a recent Federal Court decision where the Court found a company’s general purpose liquidators had not acted unreasonably in opposing an application that special purpose liquidators also be appointed.

Background