Re Chan John Loong Fai[2021] HKCA 1834

Re GTI Holdings Ltd[2021] HKCFI 3647

The Company was incorporated in the Cayman Islands and listed on the Main Board of the HKEX. The Petitioner sought to wind up the Company on the ground that the Company failed to satisfy a statutory demand served upon it on 21 January 2020. On 26 May 2020, the Company presented a winding up petition (“Petition”) against itself and applied for the appointment of PLs for restructuring purpose with the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands. Subsequently, on 28 May 2020, the Cayman Court appointed PLs over the Company.

 有關森信洋紙有限公司 (2021) 粵 03 認港破 1 號

This is how Tribune ends: not with a bang, but a whimper. The 12-year litigation saga, rooted in the spectacular failure of the media and sports conglomerate’s 2007 leveraged buyout, reached an end in late February with a curt “cert. denied” from the US Supreme Court.

Morgan Lewis was one of the firms that captained the defense for Tribune’s former shareholders. This post notes some lessons that we learned—and relearned.

Lesson One: Section 546(e)’s ‘New’ Safe Harbor

Introduction

In the case of Stanford International Bank Ltd (in liquidation) v HSBC Bank PLC [2021] EWCA Civ 535, which concerns a negligence claim for breach of Quincecare duty and dishonest assistance against the defendant bank, the English Court of Appeal (“CA”) unanimously found in favour of HSBC Bank plc (“HSBC”) and struck out both claims.

Background

簡介

在Stanford International Bank Ltd (in liquidation) v HSBC Bank PLC [2021] EWCA Civ 535一案中，英國匯豐銀行（「匯豐」）被指違反Quincecare責任及提供不誠實的協助，因而被控疏忽。英國上訴法院（「上訴庭」）一致裁定匯豐勝訴，兩項申索均被駁回。

背景

於2009年倒閉清盤的Stanford International Bank Limited（「原告人」）在2003至2009年期間在匯豐持有多個帳戶（「涉案帳戶」）。原告人因被用作史上其中一個最大的龐茲騙局而欠債超過50億美元。原告人的清盤人（「清盤人」）向匯豐提出以下兩項申索：

简介

在Stanford International Bank Ltd (in liquidation) v HSBC Bank PLC [2021] EWCA Civ 535一案中，英国汇丰银行（「汇丰」）被指违反Quincecare责任及提供不诚实的协助，因而被控疏忽。英国上诉法院（「上诉庭」）一致裁定汇丰胜诉，两项申索均被驳回。

背景

于2009年倒闭清盘的Stanford International Bank Limited（「原告人」）在2003至2009年期间在汇丰持有多个帐户（「涉案帐户」）。原告人因被用作史上其中一个最大的庞兹骗局而欠债超过50亿美元。原告人的清盘人（「清盘人」）向汇丰提出以下两项申索：

The US Supreme Court tends to hear a couple of bankruptcy cases per term. Most of these cases deal with interpreting provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. However, every few years or so, the Supreme Court decides a constitutional issue in bankruptcy. Some are agita-inducing (Northern Pipeline, Stern), some less so (Katz). The upcoming case is a little more nuanced, but could have major consequences.

Insight

Consider a lender that extends a term loan in the amount of $1 million to an entity debtor. The loan is guaranteed by the debtor’s owner. If both the debtor and the guarantor become subject to bankruptcy cases, it is settled that the lender has a claim of $1 million (ignoring interest and expenses) in each bankruptcy case. However, the lender cannot recover more than $1 million in total in the two cases combined. (Ivanhoe Building & Loan Ass'n of Newark, NJ v. Orr, 295 U.S. 243 (1935).)

简介

最近在Nuoxi Capital Ltd (In Liquidation in the British Virgin Islands) v Peking University Founder Group Co Ltd [2021] HKCFI 3817一案中，香港法院裁定，尽管香港法院承认维持完好契据（「维好契据」）的提供者在内地所提出的清盘程序并向管理人提供各种协助，但境外债券持有人在维好契据下的权利仍应根据合约的专属司法管辖权条款在香港裁决。

维持完好安排与释疑函件类似，都是内地企业支持其附属公司发行境外债券的常用增强信贷方式。由于维好契据不构成担保，内地企业集团往往以此规避禁止为境外债务提供抵押的规定。

背景