If a debt arises from a contract that contains an exclusive jurisdiction clause (EJC) in favour of a foreign court, how will the Hong Kong court deal with a bankruptcy petition based on that debt? A highly anticipated judgment from Hong Kong’s highest court suggests that the bankruptcy petition will likely be dismissed, and that the foreign EJC will be given effect. But, as we will discuss below, the Court seems to leave other possibilities open, depending on the facts in a particular case.

The administrators of Avanti Communications Limited (the “Company”) sought directions from the High Court as to whether purported fixed charges in favour of the secured lenders to the satellite operating business should be recharacterised as floating charges (In the matter of Avanti Communications Limited (In administration) [2023] EWHC 940 (Ch)).

Summary of decision

Recently, the Supreme Court, in the case of Gaurav Agarwal vs CA Devang P. Sampat, has issued notice to the parties for adjudicating the crucial question of law pertaining to the ‘Period of Limitation’ for preferring an appeal under Section 61 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“theCode”).

It is now two years since the 30 April 2021 introduction of the Administration (Restrictions on Disposal etc. to Connected Persons) Regulations 2021 (the "Regulations") and a good time to look back at whether the Regulations have achieved their purpose, what issues remain and what the next two years might look like.

Summary

In years past defaulting lender mechanics in a subscription credit facility may have been viewed as boiler plate language and, in most cases, the relevant provisions have not received much attention. In light of recent events in the banking industry, defaulting lender provisions have gained some renewed attention. In this article we take a look at the current general state of defaulting lender provisions and the impacts on the lender and borrower.

The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal (CFA) has confirmed a Court of Appeal finding that the court should respect the effect of an exclusive jurisdiction clause in bankruptcy proceedings, just as it does in ordinary civil actions.

Die Giesserei Schmidt GmbH & Co. KG kann den Betrieb fortsetzen. Für den Cuxhavener Traditionsbetrieb wurde ein Investor gefunden, der den Betrieb vollständig und unter Erhaltung aller 57 Arbeitsplätze übernimmt. Zugleich übernimmt der bisherige Betriebsleiter Peter Heinze die Geschäftsführung.

Bei dem Investor handelt es sich um Jens Jäger, der über eine umfangreiche Erfahrung in der Sanierung von Unternehmen verfügt. Jäger sieht erhebliches Potential in beiden Gießereistandorten und plant umfangreiche Investitionen sowie Neueinstellungen.

The foundry Schmidt GmbH & Co. KG can continue operations. An investor has been found for the traditional Cuxhaven-based company, who will take over the business in its entirety while retaining all 57 jobs. At the same time, the previous plant manager Peter Heinze will take over the management.

The investor is Jens Jäger, who has extensive experience in turning around companies. Jäger sees considerable potential in both foundry sites and plans extensive investments as well as new hires.

Introduction

Section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code is one of the most important and well-known statutes to bankruptcy practitioners. This section of the Bankruptcy Code protects a good faith asset purchaser who purchases assets from a debtor’s bankruptcy estate from having the sale unwound when the sale (or an aspect of the sale) is challenged by an appeal.