The Court of First Instance held in Re Up Energy Development Group Limited [2022] HKCFI 1329 that where the three core requirements for winding-up a foreign company under section 327(1) of the Companies (Winding up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap. 32) (CWUMPO) are satisfied, the mere fact that the foreign company has been ordered to be wound up by the court in its place of incorporation is not a ground for the Hong Kong court to decline the making of a winding up order.

A former listco

In Shandong Chenming Paper Holdings Limited v Arjowiggins HKK2 Limited [2022] HKCFA 11, the Court of Final Appeal has confirmed that the "leverage" created by the prospect of a winding-up – as opposed to the making of a winding-up order – provides a legitimate form of "benefit" for the purposes of satisfying the second of the three "core requirements" for winding up a foreign incorporated company in Hong Kong.

In a significant decision, the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court (Shenzhen court) has ordered formal recognition in the mainland for Hong Kong appointed liquidators. This is the first occasion on which a mainland court has formally recognized and granted assistance to Hong Kong liquidators, expressly granting them powers to deal with assets located in the mainland under the new insolvency co-operation mechanism concluded between Hong Kong and the mainland.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently ruled in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtors’ attempt to shield contributions to a 401(k) retirement account from “projected disposable income,” therefore making such amounts inaccessible to the debtors’ creditors.^[1] For the reasons explained below, the Sixth Circuit rejected the debtors’ arguments.

Case Background

A statute must be interpreted and enforced as written, regardless, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, “of whether a court likes the results of that application in a particular case.” That legal maxim guided the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning in a recent decision^[1] in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtor’s repeated filings and requests for dismissal of his bankruptcy cases in order to avoid foreclosure of his home.

随着香港及内地就相互认可和协助破产程序及重组事务达成共识，一个新纪元到来了。从今往后，希望通过中国债务人位于香港的财产收回欠款的债权人，或是拥有内地财产的香港运营实体的债权人，终于在谈判桌前享有了话语权。

随着香港及内地就相互认可和协助破产程序及重组事务达成共识，一个新纪元到来了。从今往后，希望通过中国债务人位于香港的财产收回欠款的债权人，或是拥有内地财产的香港运营实体的债权人，终于在谈判桌前享有了话语权。

霍金路伟最新一期《投资中国：法律监管信息速递》专题系列将为您深度探秘下列安排：

On January 14, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton (Case No. 19-357, Jan. 14, 2021), a case which examined whether merely retaining estate property after a bankruptcy filing violates the automatic stay provided for by §362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court overruled the bankruptcy court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in deciding that mere retention of property does not violate the automatic stay.

Case Background

When an individual files a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, the debtor’s non-exempt assets become property of the estate that is used to pay creditors. “Property of the estate” is a defined term under the Bankruptcy Code, so a disputed question in many cases is: What assets are, in fact, available to creditors?

Once a Chapter 7 debtor receives a discharge of personal debts, creditors are enjoined from taking action to collect, recover, or offset such debts. However, unlike personal debts, liens held by secured creditors “ride through” bankruptcy. The underlying debt secured by the lien may be extinguished, but as long as the lien is valid it survives the bankruptcy.

A Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan requires a debtor to satisfy unsecured debts by paying all “projected disposable income” to unsecured creditors over a five-year period. In a recent case before the U.S.