Introduction
In Re China Huiyuan Group Ltd [2020] HKCFI 2940, the Court of First Instance declined to wind up a Hong Kong-listed Cayman company as the Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that there was a real possibility of a tangible benefit to creditors upon the making of a winding up order.
Facts
SDF III Holdings Limited (the “Petitioner”) issued a petition to wind-up China Huiyuan Juice Group Limited (the “Company”) on the grounds of insolvency. The debt is not disputed.
Introduction
On Wednesday, February 23, just after 5:00 p.m., Belk, Inc. – a North Carolina-based department store chain – and its affiliates filed voluntary petitions under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. Less than 24 hours later, Bankruptcy Judge Marvin Isgur of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas entered an order confirming Belk’s Chapter 11 plan.
Does a debtor’s pre-petition change of the beneficiary of a life insurance policy constitute a “transfer” of an interest of the debtor in property? Not according to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, which held earlier this week that such transfers do not “diminish” the estate.[1]
Corporate Insolvency Cases 1. Winding up Listcos in Hong Kong - recent decision illustrates the difficulties creditors may face Re China Huiyuan Group Ltd [2020] HKCFI 2940 2. Hong Kong Court’s approach to validation application for MPF contributions made after the commencement of winding up Re Hsin Chong Construction Co Ltd [2020] HKCFI 3160 3. One petition against one debtor at one time Re China Greenfresh Group Co Ltd [2021] HKCFI 36 4. Failure to plead the basis of a petition clearly may render the petition defective Pointer & Dent Co Ltd [2020] HKCFI 2823 5.
A seat at the table: this is what you likely want when your financial interests are drawn into a bankruptcy court proceeding. You’ll seek to be heard and do what you can to maximize your recovery. This is especially true if you’re a creditor in a chapter 11 case. Yet a recent decision shows what can happen if you do the opposite and choose to “sit one out” rather than have a say in the outcome of a chapter 11 case. In re Fred Bressler, No. 20-31023, 21 WL 126184 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Jan. 13, 2021).
Perfect your liens on time or you may lose them. That’s the painful lesson U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Karen B. Owens taught Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. in her recent decision.
Ruling on plaintiff-debtor Southland Royalty Company LLC’s motion for partial summary judgment, Judge Owens found that Halliburton did not obtain a lien on Southland’s production of oil, natural gas, or their proceeds. In re Southland Royalty Co., LLC, 20-10158 (KBO) at 1 (Jan. 21, 2021, Bankr. D. Del.) (the “Opinion”).
引言\
香港法例第 485 章《強制性公積金計劃條例》規定，僱員及僱主均須在強制性公積金計劃 （「強積金」）作出強制性供款，違例的僱主即屬犯罪，而強制性公積金計劃管理局（「積金 局」）可提出法律程序追討強制性供款。最近在 Re Hsin Chong Construction Co Ltd [2020] HKCFI 3160 一案中，法院探討了公司在清盤開始後支付的尚欠強制性強積金供款，是否可獲 法院認可。
背景
經營建築服務的新昌營造廠有限公司（「該公司」）正在進行清盤。2018 年 2 月起，該公司 偶然未能為其僱員作出強制性強積金供款。積金局對該公司提出民事訴訟，並在該公司沒有抗 辯下就四項申索取得勝訴，可討回 2018 年 3 至 9 月的未付強積金供款合共港幣 958 萬元。
引言
香港法例第 485 章《强制性公积金计划条例》规定，雇员及雇主均须在强制性公积金计划 （「强积金」）作出强制性供款，违例的雇主即属犯罪，而强制性公积金计划管理局（「积金 局」）可提出法律程序追讨强制性供款。最近在 Re Hsin Chong Construction Co Ltd [2020] HKCFI 3160 一案中，法院探讨了公司在清盘开始后支付的尚欠强制性强积金供款，是否可获 法院认可。
背景
经营建筑服务的新昌营造厂有限公司（「该公司」）正在进行清盘。2018 年 2 月起，该公司 偶然未能为其雇员作出强制性强积金供款。积金局对该公司提出民事诉讼，并在该公司没有抗 辩下就四项申索取得胜诉，可讨回 2018 年 3 至 9 月的未付强积金供款合共港币 958 万元。