簡介

最近在Re Guy Kwok-Hung Lam [2023] HKCFA 9一案中，香港終審法院澄清，如果受爭議的呈請債務所涉及的協議載有專屬司法管轄權條款（「專屬條款」），法院應如何處理清盤及破產呈請。

案情

上訴人於2017年與CP Global Inc（「該公司」）及答辯人訂立了一份信貸及擔保協議（「信貸協議」）。據此，上訴人向該公司提供定期貸款，答辯人就該公司結欠上訴人的所有款項提供個人擔保。信貸協議載有專屬條款，就該協議所產生或與之有關的所有法律程序賦予紐約法院專屬司法管轄權。

於2020年，上訴人認為發生了信貸協議所指的違約事件，故要求答辯人支付信貸協議項下的未償還本金及利息。答辯人未有按上訴人的要求還款，因此上訴人在香港針對答辯人展開破產法律程序。另一方面，答辯人在紐約提起訴訟，請求法院求宣告並無發生信貸協議下的違約事件。

答辯人反對在香港提出破產呈請的主要理由之一，是專屬條款規定上訴人須首先在紐約法院就雙方爭議進行訴訟，然後才可在香港展開破產程序。

In Short

The Situation: The U.S. Supreme Court considered whether § 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code, which limits a party's ability to undo an asset transfer made to a good-faith purchaser in a bankruptcy case, is jurisdictional.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York has ruled that a creditor or trustee seeking to recover a subsequent transfer under Section 550(a) of the Bankruptcy Code need not obtain a judgment of avoidance against the subsequent transferee before proceeding with the recovery action.

簡介

香港法院在香港將外國註冊公司清盤的法定司法管轄權，受到法院自設的限制所規限；該等限制被稱為法院行使上述司法管轄權之前所須符合的三大核心要求。

最近在Re Guoan International Ltd[2023] HKCU 939一案中，原訟法庭（「原訟庭」）需考慮是否將一間已被其註冊地點的法院清盤的外國註冊公司清盤。

案情

國安國際有限公司（「該公司」）的債權人Road Shine Developments Limited（「呈請人」）於2022年12月2日向香港法庭提出呈請，請求發出將該公司清盤的附屬命令。該公司於開曼群島註冊成立，於2022年2月28日被開曼群島大法院清盤，而袁子俊先生及Martin Trott先生於同日獲委任為其清盤人（「共同清盤人」）。反對呈請的債權人Chong Chin先生及Yao Sze Ling女士（統稱「反對債權人 」）基於兩個主要理由反對呈請：

Introduction

The statutory jurisdiction of Hong Kong Courts to wind up a foreign-incorporated company in Hong Kong is subject to self-imposed restraints that have been articulated as the “three core requirements” which must be satisfied before the court would exercise that jurisdiction.

In the recent case of Re Guoan International Ltd[2023] HKCU 939, the Court of First Instance (“CFI”) considered whether to wind up a foreign-incorporated company which has already been wound up by the court in its place of incorporation.

简介

香港法院在香港将外国注册公司清盘的法定司法管辖权，受到法院自设的限制所规限；该等限制被称为法院行使上述司法管辖权之前所须符合的三大核心要求。

最近在Re Guoan International Ltd[2023] HKCU 939一案中，原讼法庭（「原讼庭」）需考虑是否将一间已被其注册地点的法院清盘的外国注册公司清盘。

案情

国安国际有限公司（「该公司」）的债权人Road Shine Developments Limited（「呈请人」）于2022年12月2日向香港法庭提出呈请，请求发出将该公司清盘的附属命令。该公司于开曼群岛注册成立，于2022年2月28日被开曼群岛大法院清盘，而袁子俊先生及Martin Trott先生于同日获委任为其清盘人（「共同清盘人」）。反对呈请的债权人Chong Chin先生及Yao Sze Ling女士（统称「反对债权人 」）基于两个主要理由反对呈请：

A chapter 11 plan may be modified after votes have been solicited on the plan, but prior to confirmation, without providing creditors and interest holders with an amended disclosure statement and another opportunity to vote on the modified plan, provided, among other things, that the modifications do not adversely affect creditors or interest holders who previously voted to accept the plan.

A handful of recent high-profile court rulings have considered whether a chapter 11 debtor is obligated to pay postpetition, pre-effective date interest ("pendency interest") to unsecured creditors to render their claims "unimpaired" under a chapter 11 plan in accordance with the pre-Bankruptcy Code common law "solvent-debtor" exception requiring a solvent debtor to pay pendency interest to unsecured creditors. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit weighed in on this question in In re LATAM Airlines Grp. S.A., 55 F.4th 377 (2d Cir. 2022).

Like debtors, bankruptcy trustees, official committees, examiners, and estate-compensated professionals, foreign representatives in chapter 15 cases have statutory reporting obligations to the bankruptcy court and other stakeholders as required by the plain language of the Bankruptcy Code. Such duties include the obligation to keep the U.S. bankruptcy court promptly informed of changes in either the status of the debtor's foreign bankruptcy case or the status of the foreign representative's appointment in that case. Furthermore, chapter 15 provides a U.S.

Exception from Discharge of Debts for Fraud Committed by Business Partner

On February 22, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, No. 21-908, 2023 WL 214441 (U.S. Feb. 22, 2023), where it resolved a circuit split in ruling that a debt based on fraud committed by, or a false representation made by, the debtor's partner or agent is nondischargeable in the debtor's bankruptcy case.