Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.
Court approval of a sale process in receivership or Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) proposal proceedings is generally a procedural order and objectors do not have an appeal as of right; they must seek leave and meet a high test in order obtain it. However, in Peakhill Capital Inc. v.
“…it is fallacious and unrealistic for the Company to assume that the value of the Haitian Shares remained the same from February to August 2019. Between February and August 2019, Haitian Energy had published no less than nine announcements suggest that the financial condition of Haitian Energy was in a state of flux, and that the value of the Haitian Shares was susceptible to fluctuation.”
– William Wong SC (Deputy High Court Judge in Re Victor River Ltd)
INTRODUCTION
引言
在Re China Huiyuan Group Ltd [2020] HKCFI 2940一案中，原訟法庭拒絕對一家在香港上市的開曼公司進行清盤，因為原訟法庭認為，呈請人未能證明在作出清盤令後，債權人確實有可能獲得實際利益。
案情
SDFIII Holdings Limited（以下簡稱「呈請人」）以資不抵債為由，發出對China Huiyuan Juice Group Limited（以下簡稱「該公司」）進行清盤的呈請。各方對該債務沒有爭議。
該公司在開曼群島註冊成立，並在香港聯交所主板上市。該公司的資產包括在英屬處女群島註冊成立的附屬公司的所有權，該等附屬公司在中國內地擁有附屬公司，而該等附屬公司又擁有該公司的相關資產，並開展生產及其他業務。
對該公司無爭議的是，該公司已資不抵債。該公司要求押後該呈請，以推進該公司的債務重組。由於股份已暫停買賣，而該公司亦面臨潛在的退市問題，該公司認為重組是令集團業務重回正軌的唯一方法，長遠而言，對該公司的債權人是有利的。
因此，法院將裁定是否立即發出清盤令或批准延期。
爭議點
爭議點如下：-
Introduction
In Re China Huiyuan Group Ltd [2020] HKCFI 2940, the Court of First Instance declined to wind up a Hong Kong-listed Cayman company as the Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that there was a real possibility of a tangible benefit to creditors upon the making of a winding up order.
Facts
SDF III Holdings Limited (the “Petitioner”) issued a petition to wind-up China Huiyuan Juice Group Limited (the “Company”) on the grounds of insolvency. The debt is not disputed.
“[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]
An asset purchaser’s payments into segregated accounts for the benefit of general unsecured creditors and professionals employed by the debtor (i.e., the seller) and its creditors’ committee, made in connection with the purchase of all of the debtor’s assets, are not property of the debtor’s estate or available for distribution to creditors according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit — even when some of the segregated accounts were listed as consideration in the governing asset purchase agreement. ICL Holding Company, Inc., et al. v.