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.

One of the primary goals of bankruptcy law is to provide debtors with a fresh start by imposing an automatic stay and allowing for claims of reorganizing debtors to be discharged. In environmental law, a primary goal is to ensure that the “polluter pays” for environmental harms. These two goals collide when an entity with environmental liabilities enters bankruptcy. The result is often outcomes that are the exception, rather than the rule, with many unsettled areas of law that can be dealt with by bankruptcy courts in varying ways.

Can a debtor reinstate a defaulted loan under a Chapter 11 plan without paying default rate interest? This question was analyzed thoroughly in a recent Southern District of New York Bankruptcy Court decision by Judge Philip Bentley.

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.

In a decision likely to have a knock-on effect for future fraudulent transfer defense and valuation litigation, the Delaware bankruptcy court recently ruled that the price agreed in the sale of an oil and gas company closed by market participants represents the reasonably equivalent value for the assets being sold and is more reliable evidence of value than expert testimony prepared for the purposes of litigation.

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

In the wake of several high-profile collapses of cryptocurrency exchanges, most notably FTX, Celsius, and Voyager, the state of the digital asset landscape is ever-changing, with more questions and landmines than clear paths forward. Among the many issues that arise in these bankruptcy cases is the question of how to treat and classify digital assets, especially cryptocurrencies—e.g., who owns the cryptocurrencies deposited by customers.