A bankruptcy court ruled that a creditor didn’t need to seek derivative standing to sue a liquidating trustee. The creditor, himself a trustee of the debtor’s employee stock-option plan, had standing to sue without prior court permission because his suit wasn’t brought on behalf of the bankruptcy estate. In re Foods, Inc., Case No. 14-02689, Adv. Pro. No. 21-3022, 2022 Bankr. LEXIS 2331 (Bankr. S.D. Iowa Aug. 23, 2022).
The owners of an ambitious Hawaiian golf project in the Makaha Valley of Oahu said Aloha (hello) to new owners, and Aloha (goodbye) to old debt obligations.
We have previously written about Siegel v. Fitzgerald, No. 21-441, the Supreme Court case considering the question of whether the 2018 difference in fees between Bankruptcy Administrator judicial districts and U.S. Trustee judicial districts was consistent with the Constitution’s uniformity requirement for bankruptcy laws.
It’s been a hard year for cryptocurrency. The values of most cryptocurrencies, including major coins such as Bitcoin and Ethereum, have continued to tumble. In fact, the price of one stablecoin, which is a form of cryptocurrency tied to another currency, commodity or financial instrument, de-pegged from its cryptocurrency token and entered into a downward spiral. Ultimately, the stablecoin and the crypto token it was pegged to collapsed, erasing $18 billion of value with it.
Introduction
In the recent case of Re Ashit Sud (Debtor)[2022] 2 HKLRD 898, the Court explained when a creditor would be considered acting unreasonable in rejecting a debtor’s settlement proposal. At the end of the hearing, the Court made a winding-up order against the Company in question and a bankruptcy order against the director of the Company, Mr Ashit Sud, who had provided guarantees.
Background
簡介
最近在Re Ashit Sud (Debtor)[2022] 2 HKLRD 898一案中，法院說明了債權人在甚麼情況下拒絕債務人的和解建議會被視為不合理。案件審結時，法院對涉案公司（「該公司」）發出清盤令，以及對提供擔保的公司董事Ashit Sud先生（「該董事」）發出破產令。
背景
简介
最近在Re Ashit Sud (Debtor)[2022] 2 HKLRD 898一案中，法院说明了债权人在甚么情况下拒绝债务人的和解建议会被视为不合理。案件审结时，法院对涉案公司（「该公司」）发出清盘令，以及对提供担保的公司董事Ashit Sud先生（「该董事」）发出破产令。
背景
Introduction
简介
最近在Re Hong Kong Bai Yuan International Business Co., Ltd [2022] HKCFI 960一案中，原讼法庭（「法院」）命令被告人（「该公司」）向呈请人（「呈请人」）偿还一项受仲裁协议涵盖的债务，否则将被颁令清盘。法院澄清，虽然法院在行使酌情权时会给予仲裁协议相当大的比重，但不一定将事情转交仲裁处理。
背景
呈请人于2021年6月10日提出呈请（「该呈请」），要求法院对该公司发出清盘令，理由是该公司未能遵守关于一项955,000欧元债务（「该债务」）的法定要求偿债书，因此根据香港法例第32章《公司（清盘及杂项条文）条例》（「该条例」）第178条被视为无力偿债。
簡介
最近在Re Hong Kong Bai Yuan International Business Co., Ltd [2022] HKCFI 960一案中，原訟法庭（「法院」）命令被告人（「該公司」）向呈請人（「呈請人」）償還一項受仲裁協議涵蓋的債務，否則將被頒令清盤。法院澄清，雖然法院在行使酌情權時會給予仲裁協議相當大的比重，但不一定將事情轉交仲裁處理。
背景
呈請人於2021年6月10日提出呈請（「該呈請」），要求法院對該公司發出清盤令，理由是該公司未能遵守關於一項955,000歐元債務（「該債務」）的法定要求償債書，因此根據香港法例第32章《公司（清盤及雜項條文）條例》（「該條例」）第178條被視為無力償債。