The recent Hong Kong Court of First Instance decision of Re Shandong Chenming Paper Holdings Limited marks another intersection between the public domain of insolvency and the private realm of arbitration.

In this and previous decisions, the Hong Kong courts have grappled with the issue of which should take priority – a winding-up petition, or the contractual term in the relevant contract that states disputes are to be resolved through arbitration or litigation.

Two primary considerations fuel this debate:

In a recent Court of First Instance decision in Re Shandong Chenming Paper Holdings Ltd [2023] HKCFI 2065 (Shandong Chenming), Harris J addressed the following issues which are important factors to be considered by creditors in strategising whether to opt for commencing winding-up proceedings against a debtor in recovering a debt, as well as by debtors in potentially raising cross-claims to defend a winding-up petition:

BGH bestätigt die Pfändbarkeit des schuldnerischen Wohnungsrechtes am eigenen Grundstück – Was bedeutet das für die Insolvenzverwaltung und den Schuldner?

Als beschränkt persönliche Dienstbarkeit kann auch das Recht bestellt werden, ein Gebäude oder einen Teil eines Gebäudes unter Ausschluss des Eigentümers* als Wohnung zu benutzen, sog. Wohnungsrecht (§ 1093 BGB).

Das Wohnungsrecht im Vergleich zum Wohnrecht

Volatile credit markets and guarded banks have made securing term loan C (TLC) debt attractive for borrowers who heavily rely on letters of credit to trade but either have low credit ratings or otherwise have difficulty accessing large enough revolving facilities to support the high amount of letters of credit needed.

The vast majority of corporate debt issuances are made pursuant to a trustee structure. This approach affords investors the advantage of uniformity of treatment and facilitates collective action, as opposed to the alternative 'fiscal agency' or direct issuance structure. But what happens when an individual investor in a global note structure seeks to take direct enforcement action against an issuer?

Executive Summary

The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a district court’s ruling that there was no actionable infringement where an uncompleted building sold under the authority of a bankruptcy court was later completed. Cornice & Rose International, LLC v. Four Keys, LLC et al., Case No. 22-1976 (8th Cir. Aug. 11, 2023) (Loken, Shepard, Kelly, JJ.) (per curiam). The Court explained that the architectural copyright claims were precluded by the bankruptcy court’s order approving the sale.

The Supreme Court has today released its decision in Yan v Mainzeal Property and Construction Limited (in liquidation) [1] (Mainzeal), upholding the Court of Appeal’s finding that Mainzeal’s directors were liable for insolvent trading and ordering Mainzeal’s directors to pay $39.8 million plus interest, with the liability of three of the four directors capped at $6.6 million plus interest.

MinterEllisonRuddWatts acted for the liquidators in the Mainzeal litigation.

Significance of decision

The long awaited Supreme Court decision on the Mainzeal appeal is out, addressing issues of “fundamental importance to the business community”. The judgment essentially upheld the factual findings of the lower Courts that the Mainzeal directors had breached directors’ duties under the Companies Act 1993, and it provides important clarity of the legal principles - and practical steps - that are relevant to directors of companies facing financial difficulties.

Important learnings

From 1 September 2023, judicial reorganisation proceedings by way of an amicable agreement as well as those with a view to a collective plan will both have a private variant. This will help avoid negative publicity and allowing the debtor to prepare its restructuring in all quietness.

As a reminder, a company confronted with financial difficulties threatening its continuity may file for judicial reorganisation proceedings to get protection against enforcement actions and bankruptcy filings by its creditors.

“(b) Duties.—The [Subchapter V] trustee shall— . . . (7)facilitatethe development of a consensual plan of reorganization.”

• From 11 U.S.C § 1183(b)(7)(emphasis added).

Facilitation is, by statute, a duty of every Subchapter V trustee—something a Subchapter V trustee must do. But the nature and boundaries of the facilitation role have always been fuzzy and, therefore, misunderstood.

My purpose in this multi-part series is to provide observations on the facilitation role.