Background

On 12 March 2024, the Court dismissed an application by the Petitioner to reverse the adjudication of the Joint and Several Liquidators (“Liquidators”) over its proof of debt, which was based on a default judgment obtained against the Company (“POD”).

It is a rare occasion that one can be assured with certainty that, if they file a motion with a bankruptcy court, it will be granted. But, in the Third Circuit, that is exactly what will happen if a creditor or other party in interest moves for an examiner to be appointed under Section 1104(c) of the Bankruptcy Code. Once considered to be within the discretion of a bankruptcy court “as is appropriate,” the appointment of an examiner is now guaranteed if the statutory predicates are fulfilled according to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

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.

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:-

Advice that may have served House of Pain in their 1992 hit song, “Jump Around,” to “bring a shotgun” to battle likely does not translate well to plaintiffs in federal litigation contemplating bringing a “shotgun” pleading to court. In this article we explore types of shotgun pleadings identified by courts and outline potential responses to a shotgun pleading.

Shotgun Pleadings and Relationship to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

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 May I wrote about a manufacturer of Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) excused from the PFAS Multi-District Litigation in South Carolina because its PFAS-related liabilities might exceed its assets which is something for a Federal Bankruptcy Court to sort out.  At the time I worried that this was only one of many PFAS-related bankruptcies we would be seeing

On average, the Supreme Court hears a single bankruptcy case each term. But during the October 2022 term, the Supreme Court issued a remarkable four decisions in bankruptcy cases. These decisions, which are summarized below, address appellate issues relating to sale orders, the discharge of claims obtained by fraud, and sovereign immunity issues in two different contexts.

I. Section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code is not a jurisdictional provision that precludes appellate review of asset sale orders.