The Hong Kong Courts exercise supervisory jurisdiction over liquidations in Hong Kong. Recently, the High Court reiterated its role to assist liquidators to effectively discharge their duties, in the best interest of the general body of creditors.

In Re Guy Lam Kwok Hung [2023] HKCFA 9, the Court of Final Appeal clarified when a debtor can resist a bankruptcy petition based on an exclusive jurisdiction clause (EJC) in his contract with the petitioner creditor. It is important to appreciate the Court’s reasoning and how it can be applied to various factual scenarios.

Recently, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom released its judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA¹. This marks the first occasion on which the nature, scope and content of directors' duties to creditors when a company is nearing insolvency (the "Creditor Duty") has been considered by the Supreme Court.

Last week, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom released its judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA. This marks the first occasion on which the nature, scope and content of directors' duties to creditors when a company is nearing insolvency (the "Creditor Duty") has been considered by the Supreme Court.

While the timing of competing English and German insolvency applications in Re Galapagos allowed for clear determination of jurisdiction under the UK Insolvency Regulation, there remains potential uncertainty as to how similar competing applications made following 31 December 2020 will be resolved in the post-Brexit environment.

Background

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.

So far this year, fewer European and American businesses have encountered financial distress that required either bankruptcy or restructuring procedures than in the same period in 2020. This decline occurred despite the ongoing economic impact of COVID-19.

Pre-packaged administration sales (where a sale of key assets is agreed prior to the appointment of administrators and then implemented by the administrators immediately following their appointment), have been a widely-used and highly successful tool to rescue businesses, or parts of businesses, that may otherwise have languished in administration interminably.

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