簡介

最近在Re Guy Kwok-Hung Lam [2023] HKCFA 9一案中，香港終審法院澄清，如果受爭議的呈請債務所涉及的協議載有專屬司法管轄權條款（「專屬條款」），法院應如何處理清盤及破產呈請。

案情

上訴人於2017年與CP Global Inc（「該公司」）及答辯人訂立了一份信貸及擔保協議（「信貸協議」）。據此，上訴人向該公司提供定期貸款，答辯人就該公司結欠上訴人的所有款項提供個人擔保。信貸協議載有專屬條款，就該協議所產生或與之有關的所有法律程序賦予紐約法院專屬司法管轄權。

於2020年，上訴人認為發生了信貸協議所指的違約事件，故要求答辯人支付信貸協議項下的未償還本金及利息。答辯人未有按上訴人的要求還款，因此上訴人在香港針對答辯人展開破產法律程序。另一方面，答辯人在紐約提起訴訟，請求法院求宣告並無發生信貸協議下的違約事件。

答辯人反對在香港提出破產呈請的主要理由之一，是專屬條款規定上訴人須首先在紐約法院就雙方爭議進行訴訟，然後才可在香港展開破產程序。

Yes, says the Delaware Bankruptcy Court in the case of CII Parent, Inc., cementing the advice routinely given by bankruptcy counsel to borrowers in default. We always counsel borrower clients in default of the risk associated with lenders taking unilateral actions pre-filing, stripping debtors of valuable options and assets. Thus, we normally recommend to always obtain a forbearance and undertake the preparations required to file a bankruptcy petition immediately upon forbearance termination, although whether or not to file depends on variety of factors that should be considered.

The Second Circuit recently held that a non-party to an assumed executory contract is not entitled to a cure payment (although it may be so entitled if is a third-party beneficiary of the contract). The result would have seemed obvious to bankruptcy practitioners. So, what in the world made the party pursuing payment take this to the Second Circuit? Well, surprisingly, as the Second Circuit decision shows, the answer is not found in the plain text of the Bankruptcy Code. And while it was argued prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, No. 21-908, 598 U.S.

A mortgage loan repurchase facility (more casually referred to as a "repo") is a financing structure commonly utilized to finance mortgage loans. These facilities are utilized by both residential and commercial mortgage loan originators and aggregators to finance mortgage loans that they originate or acquire. The structure is favored by liquidity providers in the mortgage loan finance arena due to its preferential "safe harbor" treatment under the United States Bankruptcy Code (the "Bankruptcy Code"), as further described below.

簡介

香港法院在香港將外國註冊公司清盤的法定司法管轄權，受到法院自設的限制所規限；該等限制被稱為法院行使上述司法管轄權之前所須符合的三大核心要求。

最近在Re Guoan International Ltd[2023] HKCU 939一案中，原訟法庭（「原訟庭」）需考慮是否將一間已被其註冊地點的法院清盤的外國註冊公司清盤。

案情

國安國際有限公司（「該公司」）的債權人Road Shine Developments Limited（「呈請人」）於2022年12月2日向香港法庭提出呈請，請求發出將該公司清盤的附屬命令。該公司於開曼群島註冊成立，於2022年2月28日被開曼群島大法院清盤，而袁子俊先生及Martin Trott先生於同日獲委任為其清盤人（「共同清盤人」）。反對呈請的債權人Chong Chin先生及Yao Sze Ling女士（統稱「反對債權人 」）基於兩個主要理由反對呈請：

Introduction

The statutory jurisdiction of Hong Kong Courts to wind up a foreign-incorporated company in Hong Kong is subject to self-imposed restraints that have been articulated as the “three core requirements” which must be satisfied before the court would exercise that jurisdiction.

In the recent case of Re Guoan International Ltd[2023] HKCU 939, the Court of First Instance (“CFI”) considered whether to wind up a foreign-incorporated company which has already been wound up by the court in its place of incorporation.

简介

香港法院在香港将外国注册公司清盘的法定司法管辖权，受到法院自设的限制所规限；该等限制被称为法院行使上述司法管辖权之前所须符合的三大核心要求。

最近在Re Guoan International Ltd[2023] HKCU 939一案中，原讼法庭（「原讼庭」）需考虑是否将一间已被其注册地点的法院清盘的外国注册公司清盘。

案情

国安国际有限公司（「该公司」）的债权人Road Shine Developments Limited（「呈请人」）于2022年12月2日向香港法庭提出呈请，请求发出将该公司清盘的附属命令。该公司于开曼群岛注册成立，于2022年2月28日被开曼群岛大法院清盘，而袁子俊先生及Martin Trott先生于同日获委任为其清盘人（「共同清盘人」）。反对呈请的债权人Chong Chin先生及Yao Sze Ling女士（统称「反对债权人 」）基于两个主要理由反对呈请：

Lenders often attempt to limit what a borrower can do outside the ordinary course of business by negotiating contractual protections. Some of these provisions are designed to make the borrowers bankruptcy remote by, for example, requiring the borrower’s Board to include an independent director whose consent is required for a bankruptcy filing. Others, as was the case we discuss here, however, go further by including contractual rights that limit a borrower’s ability to file for bankruptcy without the lender’s consent.

Tradition Financial Services Ltd v Bilta (UK) Ltd and others [2023] EWCA Civ 112

Key Takeaways:

On Sunday, March 12th, the Treasury Department, the FDIC, and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Fed) (the Agencies) announced that the New York Department of Financial Services had appointed the FDIC as receiver for Signature Bank, which was closed on March 11th.  Subsequently, the FDIC announced that it had transferred substantially all of the assets and all of the deposits of Signature Bank to the newly created Signature Bridge Bank, N.A.  Early on March 13th, the FDIC announced a similar transfer of assets and deposits to Silicon Valley Bank, N.A., another n