简介
香港法院过往一直承认公司在其注册成立所在的司法管辖区展开的外地清盘程序。但最近在Provisional Liquidator of Global Brands Group Holding Ltd v Computershare Hong Kong Trustees Ltd [2022] HKCFI 1789一案中，夏利士法官提出一种新的方法，承认在公司的「主要利益中心」所在的司法管辖区进行的外地清盘程序。夏利士法官认为，就香港法院承认及协助外地清盘人而言，外地清盘程序在公司注册成立地点进行这一点并不足够，也非必要。
背景
利标品牌有限公司（「该公司」）是一间在百慕达注册成立，并在香港联合交易所上市的投资控股公司。由于新型肺炎疫情持续，该公司及其附属公司的业务面临严峻困难，因此该公司董事会认为展开清盘程序符合该公司的利益，并向百慕达法院申请委任临时清盘人（「临时清盘人」），授以有限度权力以协助该公司重组债务。然而，重组并不成功，百慕达法院于2021年11月5日对该公司发出清盘令。
Introduction
A bankruptcy court ruled that a creditor didn’t need to seek derivative standing to sue a liquidating trustee. The creditor, himself a trustee of the debtor’s employee stock-option plan, had standing to sue without prior court permission because his suit wasn’t brought on behalf of the bankruptcy estate. In re Foods, Inc., Case No. 14-02689, Adv. Pro. No. 21-3022, 2022 Bankr. LEXIS 2331 (Bankr. S.D. Iowa Aug. 23, 2022).
The owners of an ambitious Hawaiian golf project in the Makaha Valley of Oahu said Aloha (hello) to new owners, and Aloha (goodbye) to old debt obligations.
We have previously written about Siegel v. Fitzgerald, No. 21-441, the Supreme Court case considering the question of whether the 2018 difference in fees between Bankruptcy Administrator judicial districts and U.S. Trustee judicial districts was consistent with the Constitution’s uniformity requirement for bankruptcy laws.
It’s been a hard year for cryptocurrency. The values of most cryptocurrencies, including major coins such as Bitcoin and Ethereum, have continued to tumble. In fact, the price of one stablecoin, which is a form of cryptocurrency tied to another currency, commodity or financial instrument, de-pegged from its cryptocurrency token and entered into a downward spiral. Ultimately, the stablecoin and the crypto token it was pegged to collapsed, erasing $18 billion of value with it.
Introduction
In the recent case of Re Ashit Sud (Debtor)[2022] 2 HKLRD 898, the Court explained when a creditor would be considered acting unreasonable in rejecting a debtor’s settlement proposal. At the end of the hearing, the Court made a winding-up order against the Company in question and a bankruptcy order against the director of the Company, Mr Ashit Sud, who had provided guarantees.
Background
簡介
最近在Re Ashit Sud (Debtor)[2022] 2 HKLRD 898一案中，法院說明了債權人在甚麼情況下拒絕債務人的和解建議會被視為不合理。案件審結時，法院對涉案公司（「該公司」）發出清盤令，以及對提供擔保的公司董事Ashit Sud先生（「該董事」）發出破產令。
背景
简介
最近在Re Ashit Sud (Debtor)[2022] 2 HKLRD 898一案中，法院说明了债权人在甚么情况下拒绝债务人的和解建议会被视为不合理。案件审结时，法院对涉案公司（「该公司」）发出清盘令，以及对提供担保的公司董事Ashit Sud先生（「该董事」）发出破产令。
背景