Introduction

The recent decision by the Hong Kong* court in Re Ando Credit Ltd [2020] HKCFI 2775 marks its first appointment of provisional liquidators[1] over a Hong Kong company with the express purpose of allowing the liquidators to seek recognition in China Mainland.

近年市场竞争及经营环境不确定性持续增加的情况下，不少企业有可能面临营运及财务困难，导致债务违约的情况有上升的趋势。如果债务人资不抵债，债权人有权利用破产清盘的程序接管债务人的资产并尽量实现回收最大化。根据香港*破产管理署公布的统计数字，在2019年1月至10月期间，强制公司清盘案及破产案呈请的数字达到7,062宗。我们藉此介绍近期香港法院就破产清盘颁发的两个重要判决。

1. 仲裁协议的存在是否会影响破产清盘程序的开展？

香港上诉法院近期在But Ka Chon v Interactive Brokers LLC [2019] HKCA 873一案中，考虑了债权相关的合同中约定有仲裁条款管辖的情况下，债权人利用法院破产清盘程序的权利会否受限。由于很多的商业协议均载有仲裁条款，法院的判决对债权人的权利及可采取的救济手段有重要意义。

在该案中，上诉人（证券公司客户，即债务人）与被上诉人（证券公司，即债权人）签订的客户协议约定双方之间的争议以仲裁解决。由于上诉人没有偿还保证金账户的欠款，债权人在香港法院申请上诉人破产。上诉人以双方已经约定仲裁为其中一个理由，请求上诉法院撤销债权人发出的法定偿债书。

With growing competition and global market uncertainties in recent years, businesses may experience operational and financial challenges, resulting in debt defaults. A creditor is entitled to petition for the bankruptcy and liquidate the debtor’s assets in order to try to achieve a maximum recovery. Statistics published by the Official Receiver’s Office noted 7,062 petitions for compulsory liquidation and bankruptcy between January and October 2019. In this client alert, we discuss two significant and recent judgments in respect of insolvency law given by the Hong Kong* courts.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, on May 4, 2015, affirmed U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert D. Drain’s decision confirming the reorganization plan for Momentive Performance Materials Inc. and its affiliated debtors.1 The Bankruptcy Court’s decision was controversial because it forced the debtors’ senior secured creditors to accept new secured notes bearing interest at below- market rates.

On Sept. 12, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision to deny payment of a make-whole premium (the “Make-Whole Amount”) to bondholders under three separate indentures (the “Indentures”) based on the plain language of those agreements. U.S. Bank Trust Nat’l Ass’n v. AMR Corp. et al. (In re AMR Corp.), __ F.3d __, 2013 WL 4840474 (2d Cir. Sept. 12, 2013) (“In re AMR Corp. II”).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, on Feb. 14, 2013, held that an insider of a Chapter 11 partnership debtor cannot avoid the “competition rule” in a new-value reorganization plan. The debtor’s equity owner arranged for his wife, also an “insider,” to contribute new value to obtain the equity of the reorganized debtor. In re Castleton Plaza, LP, — F.3d –––, 2013 WL 537269 at *1 (7^th Cir., Feb. 14, 2013).

When being sued, corporate and individual defendants should always confirm that the plaintiff has not been previously discharged in bankruptcy and failed to disclose the claim in the proceeding as an asset of the bankruptcy estate. In Guay v. Burack, 677 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2012), the plaintiff brought numerous claims against various governmental entities, governmental officials and a police officer.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held on Aug. 3, 2012, that equitable considerations could not prevent a creditor's recouping amounts owed to it by a chapter 7 debtor. Terry v. Standard Ins. Co. (In re Terry), 2012 WL 3139364, *4 (8th Cir. Aug. 3, 2012). Reversing the bankruptcy court and the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel ("BAP"), the Eighth Circuit explained that "once a party meets the same-transaction test . . . a court should not impose an additional 'balancing of the equities' requirement" on the doctrine of recoupment. Id.

Masuda, Funai, Eifert & Mitchell routinely represents creditors in bankruptcy proceedings in order to protect their contractual and legal interests and rights to payment. The following is a list of some recent larger U.S. bankruptcy filings in various industries. To the extent you are a creditor to any of these debtors, or other entities which may have filed for bankruptcy protection, you as a creditor are entitled to certain protections under the Bankruptcy Code.

AUTOMOTIVE

The Seventh Circuit affirmed a district court’s ruling that a debtor-in-possession (“DIP”) lender had breached its financing agreement, barring its claim for commitment and funding fees from the DIP. Arlington LF, LLC v. Arlington Hospitality, Inc., No. 09-3560, 2011 WL 727981, *9 (7th Cir. March 3, 2011), aff’g No. 08 C 5098, 2011 WL 3055350 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 18, 2009). Although the DIP itself had also breached the agreement, that breach was not, in the court’s view, effective until after the lender had already “walked away.” Id. at *6.