最高人民法院与香港律政司在2019年1月18日共同签署了《关于内地与香港特别行政区法院相互认可和执行民商事案件判决的安排》（“《新安排》”）。在香港方面，《新安排》需透过本地法律实施，根据香港政府2023年11月10日的宪报，《内地民商事判决（相互强制执行）条例》（第645章）以及《内地民商事判决（相互强制执行）规则》将于2024年1月29日生效。在内地方面，我们预期最高人民法院亦将近期颁布相关司法解释。依照双方共识，《新安排》会于2024年1月29日在两地同步实施。
《关于内地与香港特别行政区法院相互认可和执行当事人协议管辖的民商事案件判决的安排》（“《旧安排》”）将在《新安排》生效之日废止（第30条第1款）。但《新安排》生效前，当事人已签署《旧安排》所称“书面管辖协议”的，仍适用《旧安排》（第30条第2款）。
《新安排》的生效落地，将大大提高两地法院判决被互相认可和执行的便利性。据最高人民法院估计，新安排实施后内地与香港两地法院90%左右的民商事案件判决将有望得到相互认可和执行。
有鉴于此，我们希望分享《新安排》生效后的一些实务要点和操作流程概览，期待与业界交流探讨。
November, 2023 For Private Circulation - Educational & Informational Purpose Only A BRIEFING ON LEGAL MATTERS OF CURRENT INTEREST KEY HIGHLIGHTS ⁎ Delhi HC: Claims settled under a resolution plan become non-arbitrable and a reference of those claims would amount to reopening of the resolution plan. ⁎ Delhi HC: Transfer of liabilities from a previous loan agreement makes the arbitration clauses in subsequent agreements, binding. * NCLAT: No bar on the initiation of CIRP, if default is committed prior to Section 10A Period and continues during the Section 10A Period.
Bankruptcy Court denies a party’s request to enforce arbitration of a legal malpractice claim—and then dismisses that malpractice claim for failure to state a claim.
The opinion is Murray v. Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP (In re Murray Energy Holdings Co.), Adv. Pro. No. 22-2007, Southern Ohio Bankruptcy Court (decided October 5, 2023, Doc. 89)—appeal is pending.
Context
In the recent decision of FamilyMart China Holding Co v Ting Chuan (Cayman Islands) Holding Corporation [2023] UKPC 33 (FamilyMart),[1] the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (the Board) found that, although an arbitral tribunal does not have the power to determine whether it is just and equitable to wind up a company nor to make a winding u
The original version of this article was first published in the Trilegal Quarterly Roundup
Key Developments
1. Supreme Court clarifies that under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, creditors hold priority over government dues
Recently, in the case of Vivek Khanna vs. OYO Apartments Investments LLP1, the Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“A&C Act“), by way of which, Mr. Vivek Khanna (the “Petitioner“) assailed the award dated March 31, 2023 (the “ImpugnedAward“) passed by the arbitral tribunal comprising of a sole arbitrator.
Key takeaways
Recent expressions of concern about courts mandating mediation reminded me of a mandated mediation process that worked well: the City of Detroit bankruptcy.
An illustration of the success of mandated mediation in the Detroit case is this line:
The Bankruptcy Judge“put an end to the public bickering over the water deal by ordering the parties into confidential mediation.”
In FamilyMart China Holding Co Ltd (Respondent) v Ting Chuan (Cayman Islands) Holding Corporation (Appellant) (Cayman Islands) [2023] UKPC 33, the Privy Council has provided useful guidance about the interplay between an arbitration agreement and exercise of the Cayman court’s powers and discretion to wind up a company on just and equitable grounds.
Where a winding up petition is based on a debt arising from a contract with a non-Hong Kong exclusive jurisdiction clause, the court will tend to dismiss or stay the winding up petition in favour of the parties’ agreed forum unless there are strong countervailing factors.