Hsin Chong Construction Company Limited [2019] 原诉法庭 1531 (判决日期2019年6月13日)

合资企业协议通常会包含如下条款：在发生特定事件（包括违约方破产）时，赋予无过错方将违约方排除在合资企业之外的权利。本案中，法庭对该类条款是否无效进行了考虑。

背景介绍

2013年11月，Hsin Chong Construction Company Limited (以下简称“该公司”)与Build King Construction Limited （以下简称“Build King”）签订了一份合资企业协议（“合资企业协议”）并成立了一家非法人型合资企业（“合资企业”），目的是向香港一个政府建设项目（“该项目”）提交投标。该公司和Build King在合资企业中持有的权益分别为65%和35%。香港政府于2016年6月22日将该合同授予给了该合资企业。

该公司于2017年陷入财务困境，并于2018年8月27日面临清盘的命运。

2018年12月13日，Build King行使了其在合资协议下的权利，以该公司破产为由，将该公司从合资企业中排除（“排除条款”）。

At the very end of a recent opinion, the First Circuit seemingly provided guidance on how bondholders can attack the constitutionality of Puerto Rico’s debt restricting act, PROMESA (The Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act). However, the apparent guidance offered by the First Circuit may only be fool’s gold.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an opinion in Delaware Trust Company v. Morgan Stanley Capital Group, Inc., Wilmington Trust, N.A. (In re Energy Future Holdings Corp.) on June 19, 2019, in which it addressed distributions of assets pursuant to the waterfall provision of an intercreditor agreement in a chapter 11 reorganization.

Re Kaoru Takamatsu – [2019] HKCFI 802 (date of judgment 25 March 2019)

For the first time the Hong Kong Court has recognised a Japanese winding up proceeding and granted assistance to a bankruptcy trustee appointed by the Japanese Court.

Background

On 1 March 2018, the District Court of Tokyo, Twentieth Civil Division (“Tokyo Court”) ordered Japan Life Co, Ltd (“Japan Life”) to be wound up and appointed Mr Kaoru Takamatsu as trustee in bankruptcy.

有关Kaoru Takamatsu – [2019] HKCFI 802一案 (判决日期2019年3月25日)

香港法庭首次认可日本清盘程序，并向日本法庭委任的破产管理人提供援助。

背景介绍

于2018年3月1日，东京地区裁判法院民事诉讼第20支部向Japan Life Co, Ltd (以下简称“Japan Life”) 颁发清盘令，并委任Kaoru Takamatsu先生为破产管理人。

Takamatsu先生需要获取Japan Life在瑞穗银行及汇丰银行的香港分行所持有的银行账户记录。于是，Takamatsu先生寻求香港法庭的认可和援助，以获得该账户的记录，并处理Japan Life在香港的相关事务。

判定和原则

A dispute over whether the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) can order one of Northern California’s largest natural gas and electric companies – Pacific Gas & Electric Company (“PG&E”) – to reject wholesale power purchase contracts (“PPCs”) will be decided by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California (“Bankruptcy Court”), instead of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (“District Court”).

Under the 1992 ISDA Master Agreement, following an event of default, there is either an automatic termination or the non-defaulting party can serve a notice designating an Early Termination Date. There then has to be a determination by the non-defaulting party of the compensation that is owed by one party or the other. This is done by closing out the transactions, which involves determining gains or losses in replacing or providing the economic equivalent of the terminated transactions. Once that is done, a statement is served setting out the calculations.

Law360

Reprinted with permission from Law360

In a Feb. 20, 2019, opinion in In re Titus,[1] the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in an opinion authored by Judge Thomas Ambro, announced a new test for calculating damages in fraudulent transfer actions involving tenancy by the entireties transfers.

Facts

Welcome to this month's edition of our commercial and tech update, covering a wide range of topics from Facebook's lacklustre approach in dealing with IP infringement to further confirmation on the Courts' approach to liquidated damages.

(Mis)Adventures in advertising

Pacific Gas and Electric Company and PG&E Corporation (together “PG&E”) filed for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California on January 29, 2019.