Case: Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in administration) [2018] EWHC 1980 (Ch), Hildyard J (27 July 2018)
Summary
Case:Pantiles Investments Ltd & Anor v Winckler [2019] EWHC 1298 (Ch)(23 May 2019)
Hong Kong Court Addresses Interplay Between Arbitration and Insolvency
In Re Southwest Pacific Bauxite (HK) Ltd [2018] 2 HKLRD 449, the Honourable Mr Justice Harris held that a petition to wind up a company on the ground of insolvency should “generally be dismissed” where:
(a) | a company disputes the debt relied on by the petitioner; |
(b) | the contract under which the debt is alleged to arise contains an arbitration clause that governs any dispute relating to the debt; and |
(c) |
The High Court decision in Burnden Holdings clarifies the law on retrospective attacks on the declaration of dividends.
SUMMARY
Summary
In recent years, the Hong Kong courts have been required to deal with a significant number of cases concerning cross border insolvency. Most notably, a number of cases have arisen where insolvency practitioners appointed by overseas courts seek recognition of their authority to act on behalf of overseas companies placed in liquidation or a similar insolvency regime, and to seek authority to use powers equivalent to those granted to liquidators by the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap.
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Mission Product Holdings, Inc., v. Tempnology, LLC clarifies that a debtor-licensor’s rejection of a trademark license under § 365(a) of the Bankruptcy Code is treated as a breach, and not as a rescission, of that license under § 365(g). The Court held that if a licensee’s right to use the trademark would survive a breach outside of bankruptcy, that same right survives a rejection in bankruptcy.
SUMMARY
The Court of Appeal of England and Wales (“CA”) made a significant ruling on two matters affecting the powers and duties of directors of English companies.
On January 17, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (the “FifthCircuit”) issued a decision in In re Ultra Petroleum Corp. that could have significant implications for creditors seeking payment of contractual make-whole amounts and post-petition interest from chapter 11 debtors.[1]