In bankruptcy as in federal jurisprudence generally, to characterize something with the near-epithet of “federal common law” virtually dooms it to rejection.
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.
In January 2020 we reported that, after the reconsideration suggested by two Supreme Court justices and revisions to account for the Supreme Court’s Merit Management decision,[1] the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stood by its origina
It seems to be a common misunderstanding, even among lawyers who are not bankruptcy lawyers, that litigation in federal bankruptcy court consists largely or even exclusively of disputes about the avoidance of transactions as preferential or fraudulent, the allowance of claims and the confirmation of plans of reorganization. However, with a jurisdictional reach that encompasses “all civil proceedings . . .
I don’t know if Congress foresaw, when it enacted new Subchapter V of Chapter 11 of the Code[1] in the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (“SBRA”), that debtors in pending cases would seek to convert or redesignate their cases as Subchapter V cases when SBRA became effective on February 19, 2020, but it was foreseeable.
Our February 26 post [1] reported on the first case dealing with the question whether a debtor in a pending Chapter 11 case may redesignate it as a case under Subchapter V, [2] the new subchapter of Chapter 11 adopted by the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (“SBRA”), which became effective on February 19.
Our February 26 post entitled “SBRA Springs to Life”[1] reported on the first case known to me that dealt with the issue whether a debtor in a pending Chapter 11 case should be permitted to amend its petition to designate it as a case under Subchapter V,[2] the new subchapter of Chapter 11 adopted by
State governments can be creditors of individuals, businesses and institutions that are debtors in bankruptcy in a variety of ways, most notably as tax and fine collectors but also as lenders. They can also be debtors of debtors, in their role, for example, as the purchasers of vast quantities of goods and services on credit. And they can also be transferees of a debtor’s property in (at least) every role in which they can be creditors.
We have noodled on the impact that the Supreme Court’s decision in Merit Management Group, LP v.
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。