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：

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

簡介

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，儘管香港法院承認維持完好契據（「維好契據」）的提供者在內地所提出的清盤程序並向管理人提供各種協助，但境外債券持有人在維好契據下的權利仍應根據合約的專屬司法管轄權條款在香港裁決。

維持完好安排與釋疑函件類似，都是內地企業支持其附屬公司發行境外債券的常用增強信貸方式。由於維好契據不構成擔保，內地企業集團往往以此規避禁止為境外債務提供抵押的規定。

背景

Introduction

There has been much discussion concerning the recent district court appellate decision in Purdue Pharma. See In re Purdue Pharma, Case No. 21 cv 7532 (Master Case), 2021 WL 5979108 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2021). We have been tracking developments relating to Purdue Pharma and issues concerning third-party releases: Purdue Pharma: Is Protection of Third Parties by the Automatic Stay an Oxymoron?

On May 7, 2021, we issued a legal alert regarding third-party releases as part of the plan of reorganization in the Perdue Pharma case. [Purdue Pharma: Is Protection of Third Parties by the Automatic Stay an Oxymoron?] The order confirming that plan was appealed and our subsequent legal alert dated December 21, 2021 discussed the decision by Judge Colleen McMahon of the U.S.

On May 7, 2021, we issued a client alert regarding the Perdue Pharma case and the possibility that the bankruptcy case could include a release of individual non-debtor members of the Sackler family. At that time, a plan which contained terms that would effectively extend the automatic stay protections was confirmed by Judge Robert D. Drain, who presided over the bankruptcy case in the Southern District of New York.

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic and in 2020 alone, approximately 7,300 companies filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.[1] Of those, forty-two awarded pre-bankruptcy retention bonuses to 223 executives, totaling approximately $165 million.[2] These p

簡介

最近在Re Hsin Chong Construction Co., Ltd. [2021] HKCFA 14一案中，終審法院推翻了原訟法庭及上訴法庭（「上訴庭」）的裁決。與上訴庭及原訟法庭的裁決相反，終審法院裁定，於新昌開始清盤後出售其在合營協議項下剩餘權利及權益的交易是無效的。

背景

新昌營造廠有限公司（「該公司」）及Build King Construction Limited（「Build King」）於2013年11月訂立一份合營協議（「合營協議」），以成立及經營一間合營公司（「合營公司」）。合營公司於2016年6月獲得一項大型政府項目合約，其中該公司佔65% 權益，Build King佔餘下35% 權益。

該公司於2017/2018年度開始面臨財政困難。2018年8月27日，該公司被入稟清盤，導致該公司的銀行帳戶被凍結。

Introduction

In the recent case of Re Hsin Chong Construction Co., Ltd. [2021] HKCFA 14, the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) overturned the decisions of the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal (“CA”) below. The CFA found, contrary to the CA and Court of First Instance, that the disposition of Hsin Chong’s residual rights and interests under a joint venture agreement after the commencement of winding up was void.

Background