In Beijing Tong Gang Da Sheng Trade Co., Ltd (as assignee of Greater Beijing Region Expressways Limited) v Allen & Overy & Anor, FACV 2, 3, 4 and 5 of 2016, the Court of Final Appeal held that the addition or substitution of a party to an action amounts to a “new claim”, as defined in section 35(2) of the Limitation Ordinance (Cap 347)) and would not therefore be permitted after the relevant limitation period had expired, unless it came within the rules of court as required under Section 35(3) and (5) of the Limitation Ordinance (Cap 347).

This is the third in a series of articles highlighting the changes to be brought in by the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Ordinance 2016 (Amendment Ordinance). Since our last article, 13 February 2017 has been announced as the date when the Amendment Ordinance will come into effect. The Amendment Ordinance makes amendments to the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (CWUMPO) and the Companies (Winding Up) Rules (CWUR).

In Re Hin-Pro International Logistics Ltd, CACV 54/2016, the Court of Appeal upheld the Court of First Instance (CFI) decision that the courtdoes have jurisdiction to grant leave to amend a creditor’s winding-up petition, to include debts accruedafter its presentation. The company had been granted leave to appeal the CFI decision to enable the Court of Appeal to consider whether the rule in Eshelby v Federated European Bank Ltd [1932] 1 KB 254 (the Eshelby Rule), still applied.

This is the second in a series of articles highlighting the changes to be brought in by the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Ordinance 2016 (Amendment Ordinance), which was gazetted on 3 June 2016 and will come into effect on a date to be appointed by the Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury.

The Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Ordinance 2016 (Amendment Ordinance), gazetted on 3 June 2016, will come into effect on a date to be appointed by the Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury. It amends the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance, Cap 32. This article is the first in a series, highlighting the major changes to be introduced.

Aims of Amendment Ordinance

The Amendment Ordinance aims to:

When Cayman Islands funds undergo liquidity stress on their balance sheet due to holding illiquid assets or irregular large redemption requests, directors of Cayman Islands funds generally consider mechanics to provide for an orderly restructure to meet redemption requests which arise. Common arrangements are to implement a “redemption gate” which limits redemptions to a certain percentage of shares in the fund or a stronger response such as a suspension of all redemptions.

I sense a sea change in the recent Delaware decision in Intervention Energy Holdings, LLC, 2016 WL 3185576 (6/3/16), refusing to enforce a bankruptcy proofing provision of a Delaware LLC’s operating agreement. Until recently, the trend had been to accept the fundamental principles of bankruptcy remoteness, although courts sometimes found ways to avoid honoring anti-bankruptcy devices in specific cases.

Under the Bankruptcy Ordinance (Cap. 6) (“BO”), a person who has been adjudged bankrupt will be entitled to be discharged from bankruptcy four years after the making of the bankruptcy order, unless it is a second bankruptcy or the period is extended by the Court. The maximum extension is an additional four year period.

Greenberg Traurig, LLP | gtlaw.com 1 Sixth Annual American College of Bankruptcy Seventh Circuit Education Committee Seminar Session: Exploring the Outer Limits of the Avoiding Powers September 11, 2015 IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law 565 West Adams Street Chicago, IL Moderator: Nancy A.

This week’s unanimous Supreme Court decision barring the strip off of wholly unsecured junior liens in chapter 7 cases is one of the stranger recent opinions of the Court.  See Bank of America, N.A. v. Caulkett, No. 13-1421, ___ U.S. ___ (June 1, 2015).  While the result is not particularly surprising, what is unusual is that the Court goes out of its way to question its two decades old decision inDewsnup and may even be hinting that it is ready to overrule that decision.  See Dewsnup v. Timm,502 U.S. 410 (1992).