The Bankruptcy Protector

Chapter 11 debtors operate under various levels of uncertainty. Often a company is dependent upon others to provide financing or close transactions necessary for the company’s survival. Such was the case of Eclipse Aviation, which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in November 2008, with an (apparent) agreement to sell itself to its largest shareholder.

In In re Short Bark Industries Inc., 17-11502 (Bankr. D. Del. Sept. 11, 2017), Judge Kevin Gross of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware read the Supreme Court’s holding in Jevic narrowly in connection with a settlement of a dispute on DIP financing.

Generally speaking, the most appropriate jurisdiction in which to wind up a company is the jurisdiction where the company is incorporated, and the jurisdiction to wind up a foreign company has often been described as exorbitant or as usurping the functions of the courts of the country of incorporation.

The bankruptcy bar is abuzz following the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., 15-649, 2017 BL 89680, 85 U.S.L.W. 4115 (Sup. Ct. March 22, 2017), holding that bankruptcy courts may not approve structured dismissals that do not adhere to the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme.

The case of Wing Hong Construction Limited v Hui Chi Yung and Ors [2017] HKEC 1173 provides an overview of the legal principles which apply to an application for security for costs, where the Plaintiff against whom security is sought is a company and the application is made under section 905 of the Companies Ordinance (Cap 622). This was an appeal against the decision of a Master who had dismissed the Defendant’s application for security for costs against the Plaintiff which was a private company in liquidation. The appeal was allowed and security for costs of HK$2 million ordered.

In Re Lucky Resources (HK) Ltd [2016] 4 HKLRD 301, Hong Kong’s Court of First Instance had to consider the question of whether an arbitration award could be enforced by winding up the company against which the award had been made, without first applying for leave to enforce the award under section 84 of the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609). The Court answered that question in the affirmative.

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).