The worldwide Covid 19 pandemic has touched and affected us all in many different ways. In this blog I will look at how those of us who work in debt recovery need to take on board the impact the pandemic has had on mental health and factor that into their strategies. Mental health cannot be ignored as my partner, Cory Bebb, wrote in his recent blog
Amplifying JCAM Commercial Real Estate Property XV Ltd v Davis Haulage Ltd [2018] EWCA CIV 276 the court has again considered repeated Notices of Intention to Appoint (NOITA) and the effect on the interim moratorium.
Background
This case involved the Company filing 4 successive NOITAs although only two of them were the subject of these proceedings (NOITA 1 and NOITA 2).
The Company owned a Property which was subject to a legal mortgage and QFC. The secured loan was in default and the Company was seeking to delay enforcement whilst it refinanced.
简介
在最近 Re Lerthai Group Ltd [2021] HKCFI 207 一案中，原讼法庭澄清了法院在行使酌情权押 后清盘呈请以便公司能够进行债务重组时会考虑的因素。法院裁定，公司不但须证明在重组后 能够向要求立即还款的债权人偿还债务，而且须证明它将会继续经营盈利的业务，或至少在中 期内能够支付其到期债务。
背景
2017 年 9 月 29 日，中国工商银行（亚洲）有限公司（「工银亚洲」）与勒泰商业有限公司 （「勒泰」）订立了一份融资协议，融资金额为 1.5 亿港元。根据协议规定，香港联合交易所 有限公司主板上市的勒泰集团有限公司（「该公司」）须就此承担共同及各别责任。由于勒泰 及该公司拖欠还款，工银亚洲入禀追讨泰勒超过 1.7 亿港元的债务（「该债务」），并于 2020 年 5 月 19 日获判胜诉。
2020 年 7 月 2 日，工银亚洲就该债务对该公司发出法定要求偿债书。其后，该公司被提出清 盘呈请（「该呈请」）。该公司申请押后该呈请以便进行债务重组，而由于该公司的债务总额 接近 40 亿港元，工银亚洲请求法院立即颁下清盘令，因为其认为押后该呈请是徒劳无功的。 其他获发通知就该呈请出庭的债权人并没有出席聆讯。
簡介
在最近 Re Lerthai Group Ltd [2021] HKCFI 207 一案中，原訟法庭澄清了法院在行使酌情權押 後清盤呈請以便公司能夠進行債務重組時會考慮的因素。法院裁定，公司不但須證明在重組後 能夠向要求立即還款的債權人償還債務，而且須證明它將會繼續經營盈利的業務，或至少在中 期內能夠支付其到期債務。
背景
2017 年 9 月 29 日，中國工商銀行（亞洲）有限公司（「工銀亞洲」）與勒泰商業有限公司 （「勒泰」）訂立了一份融資協議，融資金額為 1.5 億港元。根據協議規定，香港聯合交易所 有限公司主板上市的勒泰集團有限公司（「該公司」）須就此承擔共同及各別責任。由於勒泰 及該公司拖欠還款，工銀亞洲入稟追討泰勒超過 1.7 億港元的債務（「該債務」），並於 2020 年 5 月 19 日獲判勝訴。
2020 年 7 月 2 日，工銀亞洲就該債務對該公司發出法定要求償債書。其後，該公司被提出清 盤呈請（「該呈請」）。該公司申請押後該呈請以便進行債務重組，而由於該公司的債務總額 接近 40 億港元，工銀亞洲請求法院立即頒下清盤令，因為其認為押後該呈請是徒勞無功的。 其他獲發通知就該呈請出庭的債權人並沒有出席聆訊。
Introduction
In Re China Huiyuan Group Ltd [2020] HKCFI 2940, the Court of First Instance declined to wind up a Hong Kong-listed Cayman company as the Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that there was a real possibility of a tangible benefit to creditors upon the making of a winding up order.
Facts
SDF III Holdings Limited (the “Petitioner”) issued a petition to wind-up China Huiyuan Juice Group Limited (the “Company”) on the grounds of insolvency. The debt is not disputed.
Introduction
The proposed new regulations to safeguard the proprietary of pre-packs have caused alarm in the profession, one of the areas of concern being the requirement that the Evaluator central to the process requires no professional qualifications but thankfully are qualified if they think they are (yes, you did detect some sarcasm).
The Regulations will mean that an administrator cannot execute a pre-pack if the following applies:
Background
The Debtor was 82 years of age, and subject to a bankruptcy petition in the County Court in the sum of £62,000 which was heard on 19 December 2019.
PJSC Uralkali v Rowley & Anor [2020] EWHC 3442 (Ch) is about the sale of the Force India F1 racing team, owned and operated by Force India Formula One Team Limited (the “Company”).
The Force India F1 team was more successful on the track than it was financially and by the summer of 2018, the Company was in a precarious financial position. The Company went into administration and appointed joint administrators on 27 July 2018 (the “Joint Administrators”).
Corporate Insolvency Cases 1. Winding up Listcos in Hong Kong - recent decision illustrates the difficulties creditors may face Re China Huiyuan Group Ltd [2020] HKCFI 2940 2. Hong Kong Court’s approach to validation application for MPF contributions made after the commencement of winding up Re Hsin Chong Construction Co Ltd [2020] HKCFI 3160 3. One petition against one debtor at one time Re China Greenfresh Group Co Ltd [2021] HKCFI 36 4. Failure to plead the basis of a petition clearly may render the petition defective Pointer & Dent Co Ltd [2020] HKCFI 2823 5.