Since 1993, decisions out of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York consistently adopted the aggregate “rent approach” for calculating lease rejection damages in bankruptcy proceedings. But in Bankruptcy Judge Wiles’ recent decision in In re Cortlandt Liquidating LLC, he departed from the “rent approach” in favor of the “time approach,” which is based on the time remaining under the lease rather than factoring in the total or aggregate rent still owed under the lease.

簡介

最近在Re Carnival Group International Holdings Ltd [2022] HKCFI 2668一案中，本所代表呈請人成功申請將嘉年華國際控股有限公司（「該公司」）清盤。該公司是一家在香港聯合交易所（「聯交所」）上市的百慕達公司。在本案中，法院澄清及確認其將外國公司清盤的司法管轄權。此外，法院命令就訟費問題將該公司董事（「董事」）加入為被告人，因此日後假如公司在欠缺理據的情況下反對清盤呈請，董事或須就呈請人及支持清盤的債權人的訟費承擔個人責任。

背景

該公司在百慕達註冊成立，並根據香港前《公司條例》第XI部註冊為海外公司，其股份在聯交所上市，股份代號 996。該公司是一家投資控股公司，持有在香港、中國內地及英屬維爾京群島註冊成立的附屬公司（統稱「該集團」）。該集團主要在中國內地經營主題式休閒及消費業務。

Introduction

简介

最近在Re Carnival Group International Holdings Ltd [2022] HKCFI 2668一案中，本所代表呈请人成功申请将嘉年华国际控股有限公司（「该公司」）清盘。该公司是一家在香港联合交易所（「联交所」）上市的百慕达公司。在本案中，法院澄清及确认其将外国公司清盘的司法管辖权。此外，法院命令就讼费问题将该公司董事（「董事」）加入为被告人，因此日后假如公司在欠缺理据的情况下反对清盘呈请，董事或须就呈请人及支持清盘的债权人的讼费承担个人责任。

背景

该公司在百慕达注册成立，并根据香港前《公司条例》第XI部注册为海外公司，其股份在联交所上市，股份代号 996。该公司是一家投资控股公司，持有在香港、中国内地及英属维尔京群岛注册成立的附属公司（统称「该集团」）。该集团主要在中国内地经营主题式休闲及消费业务。

On August 11, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed lower court decisions rejecting Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc.’s (“LBSF”) attempt to recover nearly $1 billion in payments to noteholders and enforcing certain Priority Provisions (defined below) that subordinated payments otherwise payable to LBSF under related swap transactions.

On November 8, 2018, Judge Vyskocil of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued a decision dismissing the involuntary petition that had been filed against Taberna Preferred Funding IV, Ltd. (“Taberna”), a non-recourse CDO, thus ending a nearly seventeen-month-long saga that was followed closely by bankruptcy practitioners and securitization professionals alike. SeeTaberna Preferred Funding IV, Ltd. v. Opportunities II Ltd., et. al., (In re Taberna Preferred Funding IV, Ltd.), No. 17-11628 (MKV), 2018 WL 5880918, at *24 (Bankr.

On June 6, 2012, Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York approved a $2.875 million key employee incentive plan (“KEIP”) in the Velo Holdings bankruptcy cases over the objection of the U.S. Trustee finding that it was primarily incentivizing and a sound exercise of the debtors’ business judgment.  Inre Velo Holdings Inc., Case No. 12-11384 (MG), 2012 Bankr. LEXIS 2535 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2012).  The decision follows well-settled law in the Southern District and Delaware regarding approval of KEIPs.

On May 25, 2012, Judge Allan L. Gropper of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York approved a motion to compel the production of certain documents under section 1521 of the Bankruptcy Code.  In his decision, Judge Gropper also suggested that the broad discovery provisions of Bankruptcy Rule 2004 may apply to chapter 15 discovery requests, but stopped short of making such a ruling.  In re Millennium Global Emerging Credit Master Fund Limited, Case No. 11-13171 (ALG), (Bankr. S.D.N.Y May 25, 2012).

On May 4, 2012 Judge Kevin J. Carey of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware held that a claim against a debtor’s estate, transferred to a third party, is subject to the same infirmities as in the hands of the original holder of the claim.  In re KB Toys, Inc., — B.R. —-, 2012 WL 1570755, at *11 (Bankr. D. Del. 2012).  Judge Carey’s opinion diverged from, and criticized, the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in Enron Corp. v. Springfield Assocs., L.L.C., 379 B.R. 425 (S.D.N.Y.

In the W.R. Grace bankruptcy, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently reaffirmed its prior rulings on the controversial issue of a bankruptcy court’s power to enjoin actions by third parties against non-debtors.1 Resting on prior precedent, the Third Circuit held that bankruptcy courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to enjoin third party actions that have no direct effect upon the bankruptcy estate.