Dentons Hong Kong LLP secured an important judgment for foreign insolvency practitioners from the Hong Kong Court on 20 January 2026, regarding recognition of office holders in the context of restructuring (as opposed to liquidation/winding-up) of a company, which will potentially have significant implications both in Hong Kong and elsewhere in the common law world.

Introduction

The Court of Appeal in Desa Tiasa Sdn Bhd v CME Group Bhd & Anor [2025] MLJU 4345 (“Desa Tiasa“) has clarified an important point of law on the standing of unsecured creditors in judicial management (“JM“) proceedings. It has confirmed that unsecured creditors have no right to intervene or to be heard in an application for a judicial management order (“JMO“), unless such right is expressly provided for by statute or subsidiary legislation.

Section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code protects purchasers of assets in a bankruptcy sale. The provision promotes finality of bankruptcy court orders approving sales and is intended to maximize the value that a debtor or bankruptcy trustee is able to realize in a sale of bankruptcy estate assets by providing third-party purchasers with certainty that the validity of a bankruptcy sale will not be subject to subsequent challenges.

在 Re Lu Zhonglou[2025] HKCFI 6165 一案中，林泽明聆案官以债权人在申请准许呈请破产令及申请替代送达命令时，未有履行“充分及坦诚披露”的义务为由，撤销破产令并驳回破产呈请。

重要事实与背景

吕先生自约 2010 年起一直是呈请人赌场的长期客户。2021 年 12 月，他签署一份信贷协议，获批可观的博彩信贷，其后新加坡法院就相关欠款作出判决。该判决其后在香港根据外地判决登记制度注册并部分清偿，仍有约 7,080 万港元未偿还。呈请人其后送达法定要求书，并以单方面方式取得准许呈请破产令及替代送达命令；吕先生于 2025 年 4 月被宣告破产，其后以送达存在缺陷及重大不披露为由，申请撤销破产令。

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its recent judgment, examined two (2) important issues under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”). The first concerned the parameters governing the admission of a real estate project into the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”), while the second related to the locus standi of a homebuyers’ association or society seeking to intervene or participate in insolvency proceedings against the developer.

On January 20, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued its unanimous 9-0 opinion written by Justice Alito with a concurrence by Justice Sotomayor in Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton and addressed whether vacating a void judgment has a time limit. Prior to the decision, there was an 11-1 circuit split, and the majority view had been that parties were permitted to move to vacate void judgments irrespective of how much time had passed.

Our specialists explain what director disqualification is, the consequences of it and the Insolvency Service’s investigations into a director’s conduct of an insolvent company.

Company directors have legal duties and responsibilities when dealing with the affairs of a company.

The High Court has handed down its judgment in a preliminary issues trial in Yodel Delivery Network Ltd v Corlett & Ors on 19 December 2025, dismissing counterclaims by Shift Global Holdings Ltd (Shift) and Corja Holdings Ltd (Corja) for specific performance of purported share warrant rights, which they had said entitled them to more than 54% of Yodel’s issued share capital in the battle for control of the home delivery company.

This is the second in a series of discussions about insurance issues unique to the Lone Star State.

Here’s a question about the new Uniform Assignment for Benefit of Creditors Act (the “Uniform ABC Act”):

• Is a liquidation under the Uniform ABC Act a good thing or a bad thing for the debtor’s unsecured trade creditors?

The answer is easy: it’s a good thing.