The Aldrich Pump Texas Two-Step bankruptcy may have survived dismissal at the bankruptcy court level, but now the asbestos claimants have appealed to the Fourth Circuit following Judge Whitley's approval of their motion for direct appeal.1

The Fifth Circuit recently issued an opinion that increases the marketability of estate assets often viewed as untouchable. In In re S. Coast Supply Co. ("South Coast"), 91 F.4th 376 (5th Cir. 2024), the Fifth Circuit held that a bankruptcy "preference" action may be sold to a third party under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code even if the buyer is not an estate fiduciary and does not represent the bankruptcy estate. A preference action is an "avoidance" claim arising under section 547 of the Bankruptcy Code.

On 29 January 2024, the Honourable Madam Justice Linda Chan made a winding-up order against China Evergrande Group (“Company”), setting into motion one of Hong Kong’s largest liquidations. Parties at the hearing were represented by three senior counsel and three juniors from DVC.

The Company is the ultimate investment holding company of Evergrande Real Estate Group, which is one of China’s largest and most indebted property developers.

As recognized by Recorder Abraham Chan SC in the very first line of his Reasons for Decision inChina Evergrande Group v Triumph Roc International Ltd [2023] HKCFI 2432, it is no secret that the Plaintiff, China Evergrande Group, is in financial difficulties and further, in June 2022, winding up proceedings have been commenced.

Where a bankruptcy order has been made and the Official Receiver/trustee in bankruptcy has been appointed, how should their fees and expenses be dealt with if the bankruptcy order is later set aside following the debtor’s successful appeal? Further, if the bankruptcy proceedings were commenced in breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause should costs be awarded on an indemnity basis?

These questions were recently considered by the Court of Appeal in Re Guy Kwok-Hung Lam [2023] HKCA 1099. Three key points can be gleaned from the judgment:-

2023年5月，香港高等法院夏利士法官第一次在诺熙资本有限公司诉北大方正集团有限公司 案 [2023] HKCFI 1350（下称“北大方正案”） 中讨论了维好协议的可执行性，此后，在2023年6月15日，夏利士法官就花旗集团诉清华紫光集团有限公司 [2023] HKCFI 1572一案（下称“清华紫光案”）作出了判决，该案关于清华紫光集团有限公司（下称“清华紫光”）的间接子公司发行的4.5亿美元债券，是夏利士法官就

Under the Euroclear or Clearstream system, companies which issue so-called “global notes” do not have direct contractual relationship(s) with the ultimate beneficial investors in those notes. Rather, the company’s books will show only one registered global note, and only one registered holder of the global note holding the note on behalf of the investors.

As foreshadowed in his decision last month (Nuoxi Capital Ltd & ors v Peking University Founder Group Company Limited[2023] HKCFI 1350 (the “PUFG Case”)), on 15 June 2023, Harris J handed down a second decision on keepwell deeds, this time in relation to US$450,000,000 bonds issued by Tsinghua Unigroup Co., Ltd (“Tsinghua”)’s indirect subsidiary: s

On 15 May 2023 (with Reasons for Decision delivered on 18 May 2023), the Companies Court made a winding-up order against Dangdai International Investments Ltd (當代國際投資有限公司) (“the Company”) which is in turn wholly owned by Wuhan Dangdai Science & Technology Industries (Group) Company Ltd (武漢當代科技產業集團股份有限公司) (“Wuhan Dangdai”).

The Facts – Shortly Stated