In many chapter 11 cases, creditors’ committees can play a vital role in maximizing the recoveries of unsecured creditors. But the powers of creditors’ committees are circumscribed by both the Bankruptcy Code and case law.
Introduction
In the recent case of Chau Cheok Wa v CT Environmental Group Ltd [2021] HKCFI 2602, the Court of First Instance (“Court”) reiterated that for appointment of provisional liquidators pending determination of a winding-up petition, an applicant must establish that there is a good prima facie case for winding-up order at the hearing of the petition and it is right that a provisional liquidator should be appointed in light of the circumstances of the case.
Background
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Craig A. Gargotta rejected a debtor’s attempt to use “CARES Act” funds, which it did not actually qualify for, to pay creditors in its chapter 11 case.
In a recent decision, a district court reversed the decision of the bankruptcy court and clarified the independent obligation of the Bankruptcy Court to ensure that a Chapter 13 Plan satisfies the necessary requirements of the Bankruptcy Code, irrespective of the parties’ conduct. In re: BRUCE D. PERRY, Debtor. KRISTA PREUSS, Standing Chapter 13 Tr., SDNY, Appellant, v. BRUCE D. PERRY, Appellee., No. 20-CV-4617 (CS), 2021 WL 4298192 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2021)
Introduction
In the recent case of Re Grand Peace Group Holdings Ltd [2021] HKCFI 2361, which concerns the winding-up of a foreign incorporated listed company, the Court of First Instance revisited the 2nd core requirement and considered whether the possibility of the court making an order to compel the directors of the company to execute the documents necessary for the liquidators to take control of the company’s BVI subsidiaries would be sufficient to be considered as a real possibility of benefit to the petitioner.
Earlier this month – citing the “virtually unflagging obligation” of an Article III appellate court to exercise its subject matter jurisdiction – the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decried the pervasive overreliance by district courts on the doctrine “equitable mootness” to duck appeals of confirmation orders.[1]
簡介
我們於7月的清盤及重組文章中，介紹了中國最高人民法院（「最高人民法院」）與香港律政司司長於2021年5月14日簽署《最高人民法院與香港特別行政區政府關於內地與香港特別行政區法院相互認可和協助破產程序的會談紀要》（「合作機制」），當中訂明了香港法院與深圳、上海及廈門三個試點地區的中級人民法院相互認可破產的程序和人員安排的具體程序。
Introduction
When the Petitioner issued the petition to wind up the Company on 12 January 2021, the Company was already subject to another winding up petition in HCCW 410/2019 and the Petitioner was aware of the first petition. The Court reiterated that a creditor should not issue a petition if a petition has already been issued against the relevant debtor company. The Petitioner argued that there are exceptional circumstances, which justified the second petition: Re China Greenfresh Group Co Ltd [2021] HKCFI 36. It was said that the progress of the first petition was dilatory.
Judge Stacey Jernigan did not mince words in a recent opinion sanctioning the former CEO of Highland Capital Management, LP. Entities related to the former CEO brought suit against Highland (the debtor in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding), and sought leave from the district court to add Highland’s replacement CEO as a defendant. In Judge Jernigan’s view, such conduct violated her “gatekeeping” orders that required the bankruptcy court’s approval before “pursuing” actions against the new CEO.