在终审法院最新颁布的 Re Guy Kwok-hung Lam[2023] HKCFA 9突破性裁决中，终审法院驳回了该案的上诉，并且在判词中就专属管辖权条款（EJC）是否对提交破产呈请有影响这一棘手问题作出裁决，平息了长期对于相关议题的争论。

简而言之，终审法院认可上诉法院大多数法官对于本案的观点，认为一般来说，如果呈请债务的基础争议受制于专属管辖权条款，除非有其他反面因素存在（例如债务人破产的风险将会影响第三方、债务人的呈请以几乎无意义的争议为基础，或者发生滥用法律程序的情况等）， 则法院应驳回该破产呈请。

终审法院在裁定中指出，当只有一名债权人提出破产呈请，而没有证据表明全体债权人都面临风险时，破产制度背后的公共政策因素的重要性则显着降低。

这一裁定反映了法院非常重视当事人自治的原则，以及当事人之间自由达成的协议。该判决将会对破产领域产生深远的影响，以及对处理清算及破产呈请中的仲裁条款产生涟漪效应。

In the latest ground breaking decision in Re Guy Kwok-hung Lam[2023] HKCFA 9, the Court of Final Appeal dismissed the appeal and laid to rest a long-standing debate on the vexing question concerning the impact, if any, exclusive jurisdiction clauses (EJCs) have on the presentation of bankruptcy petitions.

In Grant & Ors v FR Acquisitions Corporation (Europe) Ltd & Anor (Re Lehman Brothers International (Europe)) [2022] EWHC 2532 (Ch), the English High Court ruled on an application for directions (the “Application”) made by the administrators (the “Administrators”) of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE) relating to the construction and effect of certain bankruptcy-related events of default (“Events of Default”) specified under the ISDA Master Agreements (as defined below), specifically:

In this client alert we set out some of the key lessons from the recent judgment in ABT Auto Investments Ltd v Aapico Investment Pte Ltd [2022] EWHC 2839 (Comm), which considers the validity of appropriation as an enforcement power pursuant to Regulation 17 of the Financial Collateral Arrangements (No. 2) Regulations 2003 (“FCARs”), the duty imposed on a collateral-taker by Regulation 18 of the FCARs in connection with the valuation of a collateral subject to appropriation, and provides useful guidance on what is “commercially reasonable” in this context.

Where a creditor’s bankruptcy petition is presented in Hong Kong, should it be allowed to proceed if the petition debt, which the debtor disputes, arises from an agreement which contains an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of a foreign court?

“[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.