Introduction

In the recent case of Re Cheung Hing Chik also known as Charles H.C. Cheung, the debtor [2021] HKCA 981, the Court of Appeal clarified that in determining whether a bankruptcy order should be rescinded, the court is entitled to take into account facts both before or after the bankruptcy order. To succeed, an applicant for rescission has to show exceptional circumstances, involving a material difference to what was before the court earlier, to justify the overturning of the bankruptcy order.

Background

簡介

中華人民共和國最高人民法院（「最高人民法院」）與香港特別行政區政府於2021年5月14日簽訂了《最高人民法院與香港特別行政區政府關於內地與香港特別行政區法院相互認可和協助破產程序的會談紀要》。在試點計劃下，香港的清盤人可向內地試點地區的有關中級人民法院申請認可香港的清盤程序；同樣地，內地的破產管理人可向香港高等法院申請認可內地的破產程序（「試點計劃」）。最近在Re China All Access (Holdings) Ltd [2021] HKCFI 1842一案中，香港法院首次考慮這項近期發展及試點計劃。

背景

Some courts permit debtors to designate vendors crucial to their business as “critical vendors.” These vendors supply debtors with necessary goods or services. Debtors are permitted to pay them amounts owing when a bankruptcy case is filed. Accordingly, critical vendors often recover more on their pre-petition claims than other unsecured creditors. In other words, critical vendors could receive a full recovery, while other creditors only receive a fraction of what they are owed.

The Bankruptcy Code grants the power to avoid certain transactions to a bankruptcy trustee or debtor-in-possession. See, e.g., 11 U.S.C. §§ 544, 547–48. Is there a general requirement that these avoidance powers only be used when doing so would benefit creditors? In a recent decision, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico addressed this question, concluding, in the face of a split of authority, that there was such a requirement.

A recent case before bankruptcy judge Karen B. Owens of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, In re Dura Auto. Sys., LLC, No. 19-12378 (KBO), 2021 WL 2456944 (Bankr. D. Del. June 16, 2021), provides a cautionary reminder that the Third Circuit does not recognize the doctrine of implied assumption (i.e., assumptions implied through a course of conduct as opposed to those that are assumed pursuant to a motion and court order).

Introduction

At stake in a recent decision by the First Circuit was this: when a bankruptcy matter is before a federal district court based on non-core, “related to” jurisdiction, should the court apply the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure? The First Circuit ruled that the former apply, and in so doing joined three other circuits that have also considered this issue. Roy v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co.

A creditor in bankruptcy must normally file a proof of claim by a certain specified time, known as the bar date, or have its claim be barred.

United States Bankruptcy Judge Harlin Hale recently dismissed the National Rifle Association’s Chapter 11 petition as not filed in good faith. The decision leaves the 150-year-old gun-rights organization susceptible to the New York Attorney General’s suit seeking to dissolve it.

Introduction

In the recent case of Re Victor River Ltd [2021] HKCFI 886, which concerns the winding-up of a foreign company, the Court of First Instance applied the long-developed three core requirements which must be satisfied before exercising discretionary jurisdiction of the Court. In particular, the Court discussed how the holding of shares in a delisted company may impact on the Court’s consideration of the three core requirements. 

Background