简介

最近在Nuoxi Capital Ltd (In Liquidation in the British Virgin Islands) v Peking University Founder Group Co Ltd [2021] HKCFI 3817一案中，香港法院裁定，尽管香港法院承认维持完好契据（「维好契据」）的提供者在内地所提出的清盘程序并向管理人提供各种协助，但境外债券持有人在维好契据下的权利仍应根据合约的专属司法管辖权条款在香港裁决。

维持完好安排与释疑函件类似，都是内地企业支持其附属公司发行境外债券的常用增强信贷方式。由于维好契据不构成担保，内地企业集团往往以此规避禁止为境外债务提供抵押的规定。

背景

簡介

最近在Nuoxi Capital Ltd (In Liquidation in the British Virgin Islands) v Peking University Founder Group Co Ltd [2021] HKCFI 3817一案中，香港法院裁定，儘管香港法院承認維持完好契據（「維好契據」）的提供者在內地所提出的清盤程序並向管理人提供各種協助，但境外債券持有人在維好契據下的權利仍應根據合約的專屬司法管轄權條款在香港裁決。

維持完好安排與釋疑函件類似，都是內地企業支持其附屬公司發行境外債券的常用增強信貸方式。由於維好契據不構成擔保，內地企業集團往往以此規避禁止為境外債務提供抵押的規定。

背景

Introduction

A recent decision applied the ordinary course of business defense to a preferential transfer claim where the parties had engaged in only two transactions. In re Reagor Dykes Motors, LP, Case No. 18-50214, Adv. No. 20-05031, 2022 LEXIS 70 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Jan. 11, 2022). The court took a practical approach to the defense, given the absence of a detailed history of invoicing and payments between the parties.

Another case shows the perils of waiting until the final minutes to meet a court deadline. In re U-Haul, 21-bk-20140, 2021 Bankr LEXIS 3373 (Bankr. S.D. W. Va. Dec. 10, 2021).

The debtor is a well-known truck rental company. Years before the debtor filed for bankruptcy, a class action lawsuit was filed against it. The suit alleged the debtor had improperly charged certain environmental fees and sought damages totaling $53 million.

簡介

最近在Re Hsin Chong Construction Co., Ltd. [2021] HKCFA 14一案中，終審法院推翻了原訟法庭及上訴法庭（「上訴庭」）的裁決。與上訴庭及原訟法庭的裁決相反，終審法院裁定，於新昌開始清盤後出售其在合營協議項下剩餘權利及權益的交易是無效的。

背景

新昌營造廠有限公司（「該公司」）及Build King Construction Limited（「Build King」）於2013年11月訂立一份合營協議（「合營協議」），以成立及經營一間合營公司（「合營公司」）。合營公司於2016年6月獲得一項大型政府項目合約，其中該公司佔65% 權益，Build King佔餘下35% 權益。

該公司於2017/2018年度開始面臨財政困難。2018年8月27日，該公司被入稟清盤，導致該公司的銀行帳戶被凍結。

Introduction

In the recent case of Re Hsin Chong Construction Co., Ltd. [2021] HKCFA 14, the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) overturned the decisions of the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal (“CA”) below. The CFA found, contrary to the CA and Court of First Instance, that the disposition of Hsin Chong’s residual rights and interests under a joint venture agreement after the commencement of winding up was void.

Background

简介

最近在Re Hsin Chong Construction Co., Ltd. [2021] HKCFA 14一案中，终审法院推翻了原讼法庭及上诉法庭（「上诉庭」）的裁决。与上诉庭及原讼法庭的裁决相反，终审法院裁定，于新昌开始清盘后出售其在合营协议项下剩余权利及权益的交易是无效的。

背景

新昌营造厂有限公司（「该公司」）及Build King Construction Limited（「Build King」）于2013年11月订立一份合营协议（「合营协议」），以成立及经营一间合营公司（「合营公司」）。合营公司于2016年6月获得一项大型政府项目合约，其中该公司占65% 权益，Build King占余下35% 权益。

该公司于2017/2018年度开始面临财政困难。2018年8月27日，该公司被入禀清盘，导致该公司的银行帐户被冻结。

“Messrs. Woods and Wu are fraudsters,” Judge Christopher S. Sontchi declared in the opening salvo of his scathing opinion. According to the former Chief Judge of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, Woods and Wu fraudulently obtained a Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loan on behalf of Urban Commons Queensway, LLC, which indirectly operates the Queen Mary, a cruise ship turned hotel docked near Long Beach, CA.

A federal judge recently allowed a trustee’s preferential transfer claim against a law firm to proceed but dismissed a constructivefraudulent transfer claim. The decision highlights the pleading standards and analytical framework for motions to dismiss such claims. Insys Liquidation Trust v. Urquhart(In re Insys Therapeutics Inc.), Case No. 19-11292, Adv. No. 21-50359, 21 Bankr.