In a recent decision, In re Philadelphia Entertainment and Development Partners, L.P., No. 14-000255-mdc (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Dec. 31, 2019), the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that state sovereign immunity does not prevent bankruptcy courts from hearing fraudulent transfer claims against states.

On January 13, 2020, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware issued an opinion in In re La Paloma Generating Company, LLC., Case No. 16-12700 [Adv. Pro.

The United States Supreme Court has granted certiorari on an issue that has greatly divided Circuit Courts of Appeal – the question of whether an entity that retains possession of a debtor’s property has an affirmative obligation to return that property to the debtor or trustee immediately upon the filing of the bankruptcy petition or risk being in violation of the automatic stay.

Sit Kwong Lam v Petrolimex Singapore Pte. Ltd [2019] HKCA 1220案 (裁决日期：2019年11月1日)

But Ka Chon v Interactive Brokers LLC [2019] 5 HKC 238案 (裁决日期：2019年8月2日)

在Lasmos Limited v Southwest Pacific Bauxite (HK) Limited [2018] HKCFI 426一案中，当案件所涉债务是一项仲裁协议的标的时，公司法庭改变了原先在这种情况下如何裁定清盘程序的做法（被称为“Lasmos裁决”）。在近期的两起破产案件中，上诉法庭对Lasmos裁决发表了附带意见。

Lasmos案之前的裁决

上海华信国际集团有限公司（在中国大陆清算）[2020] HKCFI 167 (裁决日期：2020年1月13日)

这是香港法院首次向中国大陆法院指定的一家中国大陆公司的管理人发出承认令的案件。该案还考虑如果在送达第三债务人暂准令（garnishee order nisi）后，破产令在外国颁布，此时是否应将第三债务人暂准令转为绝对命令。

案件背景

上海华信国际集团有限公司（以下简称为“CEFC”）是一家在中国大陆注册成立的投资控股公司，是一家企业集团的一部分，该企业集团的业务包括资本融资、石油精炼和基础设施。 2019年11月，上海市第三中级人民法院（以下简称为“上海法院”）下令CEFC破产清算，并指定了联合管理人（以下简称为“管理人”）。

CEFC的资产包括对其在香港地区的子公司上海华信集团（香港）有限公司（以下简称为“香港子公司”）的重大债权，该子公司正在清算中。CEFC已就该债权提供债务证明。

The Supreme Court, in Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC,¹ issued an unanimous opinion last week, ruling that the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit correctly denied the ability of creditor Ritzen Group Inc.

CEFC Shanghai International Group Limited (in Liquidation in the Mainland of the People’s Republic of China) [2020] HKCFI 167 (date of judgement 13 January 2020)

This is the first case in which the Hong Kong Court granted a recognition order to administrators of a PRC company appointed by a PRC Court. The case also considered whether a garnishee order nisi should be made absolute if a foreign bankruptcy order is made after the service of the garnishee order nisi.

Background

The United States District Court for the District of Delaware recently affirmed a Delaware bankruptcy court case that held that the mutuality requirement of section 553(a)¹The case declined to find mutuality in a triangular setoff between the debtor, a parent entity that owed the debtor money, and that entity’s subsidiary, which was a creditor.²

Sit Kwong Lam v Petrolimex Singapore Pte. Ltd [2019] HKCA 1220 (date of judgment 1 November 2019)

But Ka Chon v Interactive Brokers LLC [2019] 5 HKC 238 (date of judgment 2 August 2019)

The Companies Court has changed the approach in which winding up proceedings are handled when the alleged debt is the subject of an arbitration agreement in the case of Lasmos Limited v Southwest Pacific Bauxite (HK) Limited [2018] HKCFI 426. In two recent bankruptcy cases, the Court of Appeal made obiter comments on the Lasmos approach.

A recent bankruptcy court decision out of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California, In re Verity Health Sys. of Cal., Inc., Case No. 2:18-bk-20151 (ER) (Bankr. C.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2019), is a good reminder of how difficult it is for a purchaser under an asset purchase agreement to get out of the deal by invoking a Material Adverse Effect clause (also known as a Material Adverse Change clause) (an “MAE”).