Re GTI Holdings Ltd[2021] HKCFI 3647

The Company was incorporated in the Cayman Islands and listed on the Main Board of the HKEX. The Petitioner sought to wind up the Company on the ground that the Company failed to satisfy a statutory demand served upon it on 21 January 2020. On 26 May 2020, the Company presented a winding up petition (“Petition”) against itself and applied for the appointment of PLs for restructuring purpose with the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands. Subsequently, on 28 May 2020, the Cayman Court appointed PLs over the Company.

 有關森信洋紙有限公司 (2021) 粵 03 認港破 1 號

Considerations of “environmental, social and governance” (or ESG) criteria with respect to a company’s management and operations continue to take on greater importance in lenders’ and investors’ credit and investment decisions. How a borrower or a target company measures up to these ever-developing ESG standards will impact its cost of capital and value to potential investors and acquirors.

Introduction

In the case of Stanford International Bank Ltd (in liquidation) v HSBC Bank PLC [2021] EWCA Civ 535, which concerns a negligence claim for breach of Quincecare duty and dishonest assistance against the defendant bank, the English Court of Appeal (“CA”) unanimously found in favour of HSBC Bank plc (“HSBC”) and struck out both claims.

Background

簡介

在Stanford International Bank Ltd (in liquidation) v HSBC Bank PLC [2021] EWCA Civ 535一案中，英國匯豐銀行（「匯豐」）被指違反Quincecare責任及提供不誠實的協助，因而被控疏忽。英國上訴法院（「上訴庭」）一致裁定匯豐勝訴，兩項申索均被駁回。

背景

於2009年倒閉清盤的Stanford International Bank Limited（「原告人」）在2003至2009年期間在匯豐持有多個帳戶（「涉案帳戶」）。原告人因被用作史上其中一個最大的龐茲騙局而欠債超過50億美元。原告人的清盤人（「清盤人」）向匯豐提出以下兩項申索：

简介

在Stanford International Bank Ltd (in liquidation) v HSBC Bank PLC [2021] EWCA Civ 535一案中，英国汇丰银行（「汇丰」）被指违反Quincecare责任及提供不诚实的协助，因而被控疏忽。英国上诉法院（「上诉庭」）一致裁定汇丰胜诉，两项申索均被驳回。

背景

于2009年倒闭清盘的Stanford International Bank Limited（「原告人」）在2003至2009年期间在汇丰持有多个帐户（「涉案帐户」）。原告人因被用作史上其中一个最大的庞兹骗局而欠债超过50亿美元。原告人的清盘人（「清盘人」）向汇丰提出以下两项申索：

Foreign companies seeking to protect their overseas assets from their creditors have often turned to the United States for immediate relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. Establishing jurisdiction in the US for purposes of a bankruptcy filing has proved easy – the establishment of a nominal professional fees retainer with a local law firm on the eve of a bankruptcy filing will suffice.

Earlier this year, Mexican airline, Grupo Aeromexico, S.A.B. de C.V. (together with its affiliates, the “Debtors”) announced that their creditor body had overwhelmingly voted to approve their proposed Chapter 11 restructuring plan (the “Plan”) save for one class of unsecured creditor claims that voted to reject the Plan. Those claims were held by Invictus Global Management, LLC (“Invictus”), a distressed investment fund that recently purchased the claims subject to a “plan support provision” which purportedly compelled the claimholder to support the Debtors’ Plan.

The merchant cash advance (“MCA”) industry recently provided two different bankruptcy courts with an opportunity to consider the characterization of MCA funding transactions as either “true sales” of receivables or “disguised loans”.

简介

最近在Nuoxi Capital Ltd (In Liquidation in the British Virgin Islands) v Peking University Founder Group Co Ltd [2021] HKCFI 3817一案中，香港法院裁定，尽管香港法院承认维持完好契据（「维好契据」）的提供者在内地所提出的清盘程序并向管理人提供各种协助，但境外债券持有人在维好契据下的权利仍应根据合约的专属司法管辖权条款在香港裁决。

维持完好安排与释疑函件类似，都是内地企业支持其附属公司发行境外债券的常用增强信贷方式。由于维好契据不构成担保，内地企业集团往往以此规避禁止为境外债务提供抵押的规定。

背景