Correcting a widespread mistake, Mr Justice Harris in Re China Ocean Industry Group Ltd [2021] HKCFI 247 held that the Court has no jurisdiction to make a validation order after a winding-up petition in respect of the issue of new shares and convertible bonds (“CBs”).
The correct position is that a company subject to a winding-up petition may issue new shares and CBs without a validation order.
Background to the widespread mistake and the present case
In the landmark case of Re China Huiyuan Juice Group Limited [2020] HKCFI 2940, Mr Justice Harris recalibrated the Hong Kong winding-up jurisdiction and its application to an offshore incorporated, Hong Kong-listed entity.
In particular, the decision explains why the Hong Kong court may be unable to wind up an offshore incorporated, Hong Kong-listed company where all of the company’s operating assets are in the Mainland.
The material facts
In recent years, it has become increasingly common for companies seeking to avoid an immediate winding-up order, particularly listed companies, to pray in aid of alleged efforts to restructure its debts in a bid to obtain adjournments of a winding up petition.
Often in winding-up petitions, contributories of the company, for one reason or another, may wish to oppose the winding-up petition in their own right, including by filing evidence and making submissions at hearings. One major concern a contributory may have in deciding whether to take this course of action is of course the potential costs consequences, especially in the scenario where the opposition is ultimately unsuccessful and the company is wound up.
In Re Ando Credit Limited [2020] HKCFI 2775, the Honourable Mr Justice Harris appointed provisional liquidators over a Hong Kong- incorporated company, in an application that broke ground as the first of its kind, made with the express purpose of seeking recognition in the Mainland.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently held that loans incurred by a debtor to pay university tuition were “qualified education loans” under the Bankruptcy Code and thus were not dischargeable.
In so ruling, the Sixth Circuit rejected the debtor’s arguments that:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently held that property in which a debtor’s dependent son lived part-time with his father qualified for the so-called homestead exemption contained in section 522(d)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, regardless of state law.
The year 2020 in bankruptcy law started with an eye on increasing the ability of small businesses to utilize the Chapter 11 process in a more efficient and less expensive way, which lead to a record number of commercial filings, a reduction in consumer filings, and a test of the bankruptcy system.
SBRA aka Subchapter V
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently reversed an award of summary judgment in favor of a defendant debt collector against claims that it violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by attempting to collect a debt that was discharged in bankruptcy and no longer owed.