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：
The Singapore High Court has recently granted recognition to Hong Kong liquidation proceedings and liquidators for the first time under Singapore's enactment of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Model Law on Cross Border Insolvency (the model law).
In several Commonwealth jurisdictions, the corporate legislation allows creditors to petition a court to order the winding up of a debtor in circumstances where that debtor is unable to pay its debts as they fall due. Such legislation generally presumes that the debtor is insolvent if it has failed to comply with a statutory notice requiring the debtor to pay a certain debt within a given period of time (a statutory demand).
Just in time for the Chinese New Year, a Hong Kong court has taken a major step forward in the developing law on cross-border insolvency by recognizing a mainland Chinese liquidation for the first time. In the Joint and Several Liquidators of CEFC Shanghai International Group Ltd [2020] HKCFI 167, Mr. Justice Harris granted recognition and assistance to mainland administrators in Hong Kong so they could perform their functions and protect assets held in Hong Kong from enforcement.
The Hong Kong Court of Appeal has suggested that a previous Court decision may have overstepped the mark by suggesting that an arbitration clause in a client agreement should generally take precedence over a creditor's right to present a winding-up petition.
On 8 February 2018, the Hong Kong Court of First Instance (the “Hong Kong Court“) ruled that the common law power to recognise and assist foreign insolvency proceedings extends to voluntary liquidations – this is the first authority on this issue in Hong Kong.
Case: IN THE MATTER of an application for recognition and assistance by the Joint Liquidators of Supreme Tycoon Limited (in liquidation in the British Virgin Islands) [2018] HKCFI 277
“[C]ourts may account for hypothetical preference actions within a hypothetical [C]hapter 7 liquidation” to hold a defendant bank (“Bank”) liable for a payment it received within 90 days of a debtor’s bankruptcy, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on March 7, 2017.In re Tenderloin Health, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4008, *4 (9th Cir. March 7, 2017).
The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Bankruptcy Rules”) require each corporate party in an adversary proceeding (i.e., a bankruptcy court suit) to file a statement identifying the holders of “10% or more” of the party’s equity interests. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7007.1(a). Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn, relying on another local Bankruptcy Rule (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. R.
A Chapter 11 debtor “cannot nullify a preexisting obligation in a loan agreement to pay post-default interest solely by proposing a cure,” held a split panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Nov. 4, 2016. In re New Investments Inc., 2016 WL 6543520, *3 (9th Cir. Nov. 4, 2016) (2-1).
While a recent federal bankruptcy court ruling provides some clarity as to how midstream gathering agreements may be treated in Chapter 11 cases involving oil and gas exploration and production companies (“E&Ps”), there are still many questions that remain. This Alert analyzes and answers 10 important questions raised by the In re Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation decision of March 8, 2016.[1]