Highlights

The Supreme Court held Section 363(m) is only a “statutory limitation” to accessing appellate relief in disputed bankruptcy sales that requires parties to take certain procedural steps to be effective

The Supreme Court also addressed mootness arguments and held that as long as parties have a concrete interest, however small, in the outcome of an appeal, the appeal should remain alive

The ruling provides insight as to how the Supreme Court may tackle the controversial doctrine of “equitable mootness”

Highlights

Counterparties should continue to follow their current contractual obligations

Silicon Valley Bank’s parent company bankruptcy filing will not impact contractual rights

Counterparties should be vigilant and consider alternate financing arrangements

In the tenth edition of Going concerns, Stephenson Harwood’s restructuring and insolvency team covers the innovative attempt by a distressed company to shut out low-valued creditors in a scheme of arrangement, the utility of the Singapore recognition of foreign insolvencies regime to assist international liquidations, and the factors which the Singapore Courts will consider when deciding whether to stay a bankruptcy application. It has been a pleasure preparing these articles over the past five years and a big thank you to our readers!

Content

In the current times of financial stress, a borrower seeking to renegotiate or refinance existing financing arrangements may be asked by its lender to enhance or refresh its security package through the grant of a new floating charge.

The question of whether a floating charge can be avoided due to section 245 of the Insolvency Act 1986 ("IA 1986") can arise in such a context.

Void floating charges under section 245 of the IA 1986

When an Event of Default is "continuing" is not defined or addressed in the ISDA Master Agreement. Until now it does not appear to have been expressly considered in case law either.

As the tile suggests the state of recognition and assistance jurisprudence & practice in Hong Kong is less than clear. This follows the recent (mostly) conflicting 1st instance decisions of Up Energy and Global Brands. Here are my views about (i) what I believe is settled; (ii) the points of judicial difference; and (iii) what remains unclear.

Settled

The Supreme Court has handed down its long-awaited judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA [2022] UKSC 25.

Basic facts

In the latest edition of Going concerns, Stephenson Harwood's restructuring and insolvency team covers the use of lock-up agreements in schemes of arrangements, and the developments in Singapore and Hong Kong as regards recognition of foreign insolvencies. Our final article is a must-read for lenders, discussing the circumstances under which security may be unwound as a undervalued transaction.

Content

Hong Kong’s insolvency regime is based mainly on that of the United Kingdom. The legislation concerning corporate insolvency is contained largely in the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap 32) (“CWUMPO”) and the Companies (Winding-up) Rules. The corporate insolvency and winding up provisions in the legislation are broadly based on the Companies Act 1929 and the Companies Act 1948 of the UK. The last major amendment of those provisions was made in 2016. 

A guide to restructuring and insolvency issues and procedures in Hong Kong

Contents

Seahawk China Dynamic Fund [2022] HKCFI 1994 (date of reasons for decision: 4 July 2022)

Introduction