On 23 October 2024, Deputy High Court Judge Le Pichon of the Court of First Instance in the High Court of the Hong Kong SAR granted recognition and assistance to Chan Ho Yin (also known as Michael Chan) (“Mr Chan“) of Kroll (HK) Ltd and Elaine Hanrahan (“Ms Hanrahan“), the joint official liquidators of Bull’s-Eye Limited (“Bull’s-Eye”) following a letter of request issued by the British Virgin Islands (“BVI”) Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court.

Is it possible for a debtor company to issue debt (such as bonds) and contractually agree for that debt to rank lower in priority than debts owed by a company to other unsecured creditors? This article examines the commercial uses of subordinated debt agreements, and considers how courts in the offshore jurisdictions of the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands and Bermuda would treat a subordinated debt agreement in a winding-up.

引言

在香港、中国内地和台湾等司法管辖区运营的家族企业，通常会把企业的实益拥有权和控制权置于英属维尔京群岛（下称“BVI”）注册成立的公司股东名下。受惠于 BVI 公司隐私法的相关优势及其对高净值个人和家族的特殊吸引力，整个企业的实益拥有权甚至能位于国际业务结构顶端的 BVI 控股公司（下称“BVI 控股公司”）发行的股份。

从遗产规划的角度来看，为了确保企业由家族或高净值个人保留控制，企业的融资方式通常是通过股东或几个主要股东向企业提供贷款。如果企业多年来的融资方式一直是 BVI 控股公司获提供的贷款，那么该 BVI 公司欠下的债务总额很有可能相当庞大。一旦贷款人去世便会产生一系列问题，例如死者能否追讨 BVI 公司欠下的债务、追讨申请的正确诉讼地等。

本文将厘清上述部分问题，并分享康德明对于已故个人代表在 BVI 追讨债务的一些指引。

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently ruled in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtors’ attempt to shield contributions to a 401(k) retirement account from “projected disposable income,” therefore making such amounts inaccessible to the debtors’ creditors.^[1] For the reasons explained below, the Sixth Circuit rejected the debtors’ arguments.

Case Background

A statute must be interpreted and enforced as written, regardless, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, “of whether a court likes the results of that application in a particular case.” That legal maxim guided the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning in a recent decision^[1] in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtor’s repeated filings and requests for dismissal of his bankruptcy cases in order to avoid foreclosure of his home.

On January 14, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton (Case No. 19-357, Jan. 14, 2021), a case which examined whether merely retaining estate property after a bankruptcy filing violates the automatic stay provided for by §362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court overruled the bankruptcy court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in deciding that mere retention of property does not violate the automatic stay.

Case Background

When an individual files a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, the debtor’s non-exempt assets become property of the estate that is used to pay creditors. “Property of the estate” is a defined term under the Bankruptcy Code, so a disputed question in many cases is: What assets are, in fact, available to creditors?

Once a Chapter 7 debtor receives a discharge of personal debts, creditors are enjoined from taking action to collect, recover, or offset such debts. However, unlike personal debts, liens held by secured creditors “ride through” bankruptcy. The underlying debt secured by the lien may be extinguished, but as long as the lien is valid it survives the bankruptcy.

A Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan requires a debtor to satisfy unsecured debts by paying all “projected disposable income” to unsecured creditors over a five-year period. In a recent case before the U.S.

One of the objectives of the Bankruptcy Code is to ensure that each class of creditors is treated equally. And one of the ways that is accomplished is to allow the debtor’s estate to claw back certain pre-petition payments made to creditors. Accordingly, creditors of a debtor who files for bankruptcy are often unpleasantly surprised to learn that they may be forced to relinquish “preferential” payments they received before the bankruptcy filing.