The recent decision of Mr Justice Harris in Nuoxi Capital Ltd v Peking University Founder Group Co Ltd [2021] HKCFI 3817 shows the tension between the Hong Kong’s courts willingness to recognise foreign insolvency proceedings and the contractual rights of creditors who sought to enforce exclusive jurisdiction clauses in favour of Hong Kong.
In the recent case of Re Shum Tung Lam formerly known as Shum Wan Man [2020] HKCFI 1720, the Court of First Instance was asked to clarify the requirements under section 30A(6) of the Bankruptcy Ordinance (Cap. 6) (BO) which governs objections made by creditors or trustees to the automatic discharge of a bankrupt from bankruptcy.
Section 29 of the Bankruptcy Ordinance (Cap. 6) (BO) allows a trustee in bankruptcy to apply to the Courts for orders compelling disclosure of material documents and/or information of the bankrupt in order for the trustee to carry out his/her duties under the bankruptcy. For the authors’ previous article on Section 29, please see here.
Section 29 provides that:
In recent years, the Hong Kong courts have been required to deal with a significant number of cases concerning cross border insolvency. Most notably, a number of cases have arisen where insolvency practitioners appointed by overseas courts seek recognition of their authority to act on behalf of overseas companies placed in liquidation or a similar insolvency regime, and to seek authority to use powers equivalent to those granted to liquidators by the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap.
“[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]
Under the Bankruptcy Ordinance (Cap. 6) (“BO”), a person who has been adjudged bankrupt will be entitled to be discharged from bankruptcy four years after the making of the bankruptcy order, unless it is a second bankruptcy or the period is extended by the Court. The maximum extension is an additional four year period.
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.