On March 31, 2021, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada awarded attorney’s fees to a debtor under a Nevada fee-shifting statute for objecting to a time-barred proof of claim.¹ The opinion serves as a warning that filing a proof of claim for time-barred debt may carry consequences other than claim disallowance despite the Supreme Court’s recent holding in Midland Fu

The recent Court of First Instance decision in Li Yiqing v Lamtex Holdings Limited [2021] HKCFI 622 (11 March 2021) is a landmark decision in cross-border insolvency law in Hong Kong, in which the Court held that when it is considering the recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings, regard should not simply be had to the place of incorporation of the relevant company, but that in a departure from previous practice, the location of the company’s centre of main interest (COMI) is also a factor.

A year ago, many predicted that the COVID-19 stay-at-home orders and social distancing guidelines and their impact on the economy would result in a deluge of bankruptcy filings that could rival the Great Recession of 2008-2009. However, as we approach the one-year anniversary of former President Trump declaring the SARS-CoV-2 novel coronavirus a national emergency, that prediction has not come to pass.

On January 14, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton, __ U.S. __, 2021 WL 125106 (Jan. 14, 2021), which addresses issues related to the automatic stay and a creditor’s ability to retain property of a debtor’s estate upon the commencement of a bankruptcy case. The Fulton decision is a consolidation of four similar cases where the City of Chicago impounded debtor cars pre-petition in response to unpaid traffic tickets and fines. After filing for bankruptcy, each debtor requested that the City return the respective vehicles.

At present, Hong Kong does not have any statutory corporate rescue regime. A financially distressed company may try to rescue its business by entering into (i) private debt restructuring agreement(s) with its major creditors; or (ii) a scheme of arrangement under the Companies Ordinance (Cap. 622), which allows for a compromise between the company and its shareholders and creditors.

Two recent decisions of the Honourable Mr Justice Harris are helpful additions to the growing amount of case law in this jurisdiction dealing with cross-border insolvency issues and are worthy of examination.

Hong Kong Companies Court appoints provisional liquidators for the purpose of seeking recognition in Mainland for the first time

In the recent case of Re Shum Tung Lam formerly known as Shum Wan Man [2020] HKCFI 1720, the Court of First Instance was asked to clarify the requirements under section 30A(6) of the Bankruptcy Ordinance (Cap. 6) (BO) which governs objections made by creditors or trustees to the automatic discharge of a bankrupt from bankruptcy.

Summary

Section 29 of the Bankruptcy Ordinance (Cap. 6) (BO) allows a trustee in bankruptcy to apply to the Courts for orders compelling disclosure of material documents and/or information of the bankrupt in order for the trustee to carry out his/her duties under the bankruptcy. For the authors’ previous article on Section 29, please see here.

Section 29 provides that:

Under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, qualifying businesses may seek up to $10 million under the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) for funding payroll and business expenses. The US Small Business Administration (SBA) guarantees the loans, and the full principal amount of the loans and any accrued interest may qualify for loan forgiveness. For many businesses, PPP loans have served as a lifeline during the COVID-19 pandemic.