Introduction

The statutory jurisdiction of Hong Kong Courts to wind up a foreign-incorporated company in Hong Kong is subject to self-imposed restraints that have been articulated as the “three core requirements” which must be satisfied before the court would exercise that jurisdiction.

In the recent case of Re Guoan International Ltd[2023] HKCU 939, the Court of First Instance (“CFI”) considered whether to wind up a foreign-incorporated company which has already been wound up by the court in its place of incorporation.

简介

香港法院在香港将外国注册公司清盘的法定司法管辖权，受到法院自设的限制所规限；该等限制被称为法院行使上述司法管辖权之前所须符合的三大核心要求。

最近在Re Guoan International Ltd[2023] HKCU 939一案中，原讼法庭（「原讼庭」）需考虑是否将一间已被其注册地点的法院清盘的外国注册公司清盘。

案情

国安国际有限公司（「该公司」）的债权人Road Shine Developments Limited（「呈请人」）于2022年12月2日向香港法庭提出呈请，请求发出将该公司清盘的附属命令。该公司于开曼群岛注册成立，于2022年2月28日被开曼群岛大法院清盘，而袁子俊先生及Martin Trott先生于同日获委任为其清盘人（「共同清盘人」）。反对呈请的债权人Chong Chin先生及Yao Sze Ling女士（统称「反对债权人 」）基于两个主要理由反对呈请：

As the economic headwinds indicate that borrowers will continue to face financial pressures in 2023 and beyond, lenders are seeking ways to exercise more leverage as “covenant-lite” facilities prevail. Material adverse change clauses in finance documents UK and US perspective By Olga Galazoula, Jacques McChesney and Charlotte Harvey 4 FUNDS INSIDER FUNDS INSIDER 5 The event relied upon by the lender to enforce this clause was the making of an arbitration award that could potentially result in significant damages being awarded against the borrower.

The preliminary draft of the law on structural changes of commercial companies approved by the Spanish Government on 14 February (the "Preliminary Draft") aims to transpose Directive (EU) 2019/2121 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2019 amending Directive (EU) 2017/1132 regarding cross-border transformations, mergers and demergers of companies

With increased distress in the mid-market we may well see lenders using different tools to keep a closer eye on a company’s financial performance. One of those tools is to appoint a board observer.

With all the market turmoil and headlines about insolvencies or potential insolvencies in the financial sector and the wider markets, and potential rescue of stressed/distressed entities, many clients are concerned, and should be thinking, about the potential impact of these developments on their derivatives (commonly documented under an ISDA master agreement (an ISDA)) and, in particular: (a) if the relevant event constitutes a default, potential event of default, event of default or termination event or, alternatively, will trigger automatic early termination, under their ISDAs with their

Section 365(n) of the United States Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. Title 11) protects the rights of intellectual property (IP) non-debtor licensees. Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code allows a debtor –in-possession, or a trustee (e.g., a software vendor) to: (a) assume, (b) assign, or (c) reject certain executory contracts – which would typically include software licenses. A debtor in possession’s decision to assume, assign, or reject an executory contract is subject to court approval, certain deadlines and other requirements detain Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code.

上市公司重整是重整领域的风向标，由于其衔接了资本市场和破产制度两大重要领域，且上市公司具有公众性、公开性和稀缺性等特点，因此受到了广泛的关注，可谓是重整皇冠上的一颗明珠。自《中华人民共和国企业破产法》实施至今，共计103家上市公司实施了重整，其中最近四年的重整案例数量占据了总量的半壁江山并呈现出新的特点，同时亦产生诸多前沿法律问题并在一定程度上推动了现行重整制度和证券监管政策的变革和调整。

一、近年上市公司重整所呈现的特点

1. 顶层政策明确支持。2020年，国务院在《关于进一步提高上市公司质量的意见》中，明确提出“支持上市公司通过并购重组、破产重整等方式出清风险”。在实务中，近年来证监会对上市公司重整受理的审查政策适度宽松。主要表现在证监会对于上市公司违规担保、资金占用等问题，有条件地允许其在重整程序之中解决，而此前证监会原则上要求上市公司在进入重整前解决此类问题，致使很多存在违规问题的上市公司对重整脱困之路只能“望洋兴叹”。

A company voluntary arrangement (CVA) is a tool which has been widely utilised by companies seeking to restructure and compromise liabilities.

In recent years CVAs have been in the limelight because of attacks by landlords who feel that they have been unfairly prejudiced by the CVA terms. Largely, challenges such as those to the Regis and New Look CVAs have been unsuccessful, but arguments about unfair prejudice based on “vote swamping” were left open for future debate.

For at least the past decade, federal bankruptcy courts have routinely prohibited cannabis businesses from seeking protection under federal bankruptcy law, regardless of whether a cannabis business is legally operating under state law.