Hot on the heels of a trio of decisions concerning offshore provisional liquidation, which opened a new and commendable era for Hong Kong’s cross-border insolvency regime (see https://dvc.hk/en/news/cases-detail/heralding-a-new-and-healthy-era-of-cross-border-insolvency-recognition-in-hong-kong-re-fdg-electric-vehicles-ltd-re-

Through a trio of decisions, Mr Justice Harris has opened a new and commendable era for Hong Kong’s cross-border insolvency regime. The position under this new era is in brief thus:

First, the Hong Kong court is likely to use the debtor’s centre of main interests (“COMI”) as a yardstick to determine eligibility for recognition and assistance.

In Li Yiqing v Lamtex Holdings Ltd [2021] HKCFI 622, the Companies Court considered whether to put a Bermuda-incorporated company into immediate liquidation in Hong Kong or to adjourn the local winding-up petition to allow restructuring to proceed with the involvement of joint provisional liquidators appointed in Bermuda.

Public policy, “No-Action” and arbitration clauses, and the substitution of petitioners

Background

Bonds that are traded via clearing houses, such as Euroclear and Clearstream, often contain terms providing that there will be a trustee for the issue, who may be appointed by the participants in the relevant clearing system or by the beneficial owners.

Correcting a widespread mistake, Mr Justice Harris in Re China Ocean Industry Group Ltd [2021] HKCFI 247 held that the Court has no jurisdiction to make a validation order after a winding-up petition in respect of the issue of new shares and convertible bonds (“CBs”).

The correct position is that a company subject to a winding-up petition may issue new shares and CBs without a validation order.

Background to the widespread mistake and the present case

Overview

In In re Nuverra Environmental Solutions, Inc., Case No. 18-3084, the Third Circuit affirmed the opinion of the District Court for the District of Delaware denying the confirmation appeal of an unsecured noteholder as equitably moot. In doing so, the Third Circuit (i) refused to allow a full-class recovery, as it would unscramble the substantially consummated plan, and (ii) refused an individualized payout to the bondholder, as it would unfairly discriminate against other members of the class in contravention of the Bankruptcy Code.

In the landmark case of Re China Huiyuan Juice Group Limited [2020] HKCFI 2940, Mr Justice Harris recalibrated the Hong Kong winding-up jurisdiction and its application to an offshore incorporated, Hong Kong-listed entity.

In particular, the decision explains why the Hong Kong court may be unable to wind up an offshore incorporated, Hong Kong-listed company where all of the company’s operating assets are in the Mainland.

The material facts

Bottom Line

In its recent decision in Mitchell v. Zagaroli, Adv. Pro. No. 20-05000, 2020 WL 6495156 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. Nov. 3, 2020), the Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina held that the Chapter 7 trustee could step into the shoes of the IRS and utilize the IRS’ longer look-back period to avoid fraudulent transfers.

What Happened?

The Bottom Line

The Bottom Line

In In re CEC Entertainment, Inc., et al., 20-33163, 2020 WL 7356380 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Dec. 14, 2020), the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas held that the Bankruptcy Code does not permit the court to alter a debtor’s rent obligations beyond the 60-day post-petition period enumerated in Section 365(d)(3) of the code. However, the court declined to address the remedy for a violation of Section 365(d)(3).

What Happened?

Background