Introduction
Introduction
In the recent case of Re Ashit Sud (Debtor)[2022] 2 HKLRD 898, the Court explained when a creditor would be considered acting unreasonable in rejecting a debtor’s settlement proposal. At the end of the hearing, the Court made a winding-up order against the Company in question and a bankruptcy order against the director of the Company, Mr Ashit Sud, who had provided guarantees.
Background
簡介
最近在Re Ashit Sud (Debtor)[2022] 2 HKLRD 898一案中，法院說明了債權人在甚麼情況下拒絕債務人的和解建議會被視為不合理。案件審結時，法院對涉案公司（「該公司」）發出清盤令，以及對提供擔保的公司董事Ashit Sud先生（「該董事」）發出破產令。
背景
简介
最近在Re Ashit Sud (Debtor)[2022] 2 HKLRD 898一案中，法院说明了债权人在甚么情况下拒绝债务人的和解建议会被视为不合理。案件审结时，法院对涉案公司（「该公司」）发出清盘令，以及对提供担保的公司董事Ashit Sud先生（「该董事」）发出破产令。
背景
On 14 June 2022, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal (the “CFA”) handed down a long-awaited and landmark judgement in Shandong Chenming Paper Holdings Limited v Arjowiggins HKK 2 Limited[2022] HKCFA 11, which would have significant implications to companies incorporated in offshore jurisdictions but listed in Hong Kong.
Introduction
简介
最近在Re Hong Kong Bai Yuan International Business Co., Ltd [2022] HKCFI 960一案中，原讼法庭（「法院」）命令被告人（「该公司」）向呈请人（「呈请人」）偿还一项受仲裁协议涵盖的债务，否则将被颁令清盘。法院澄清，虽然法院在行使酌情权时会给予仲裁协议相当大的比重，但不一定将事情转交仲裁处理。
背景
呈请人于2021年6月10日提出呈请（「该呈请」），要求法院对该公司发出清盘令，理由是该公司未能遵守关于一项955,000欧元债务（「该债务」）的法定要求偿债书，因此根据香港法例第32章《公司（清盘及杂项条文）条例》（「该条例」）第178条被视为无力偿债。
簡介
最近在Re Hong Kong Bai Yuan International Business Co., Ltd [2022] HKCFI 960一案中，原訟法庭（「法院」）命令被告人（「該公司」）向呈請人（「呈請人」）償還一項受仲裁協議涵蓋的債務，否則將被頒令清盤。法院澄清，雖然法院在行使酌情權時會給予仲裁協議相當大的比重，但不一定將事情轉交仲裁處理。
背景
呈請人於2021年6月10日提出呈請（「該呈請」），要求法院對該公司發出清盤令，理由是該公司未能遵守關於一項955,000歐元債務（「該債務」）的法定要求償債書，因此根據香港法例第32章《公司（清盤及雜項條文）條例》（「該條例」）第178條被視為無力償債。
The Delaware Court of Chancery took the old maxim “justice delayed is justice denied” to heart recently when it denied a request for a stay of proceedings hours after the request had been filed. The ruling from Vice Chancellor Paul A. Fioravanti, Jr. in In re Kidbox.com, Inc., Case No. 2022-0379-PAF, is the latest in a series of rulings from the Delaware Court of Chancery requiring litigants in bankruptcy-alternative proceedings in Delaware to support their petitions for relief with sufficient disclosures and to avoid bare-boned pleadings.
Introduction
In the recent case of Trinity Concept Ltd (In Liq) v Wong Kung Sang (黃共生) [2022] 1 HKLRD 1388, the Court of First Instance (“Court”) dismissed the defendant’s application to strike out a claim for an account on the ground that the action was not commenced within the six-year limitation period under section 20(2) of the Limitation Ordinance (Cap. 347 of the Laws of Hong Kong) (“LO”).
Background