Re: GUY KWOK-HUNG LAM [2023] HKCFA 9 (date of decision: 4 May 2023)

Introduction

In the recent decision in Re Guy Kwok-Hung Lam, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal set out the proper approach to a bankruptcy petition where the parties had agreed to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of a specified foreign court.

1. At the Debt Restructuring in the Asia-Pacific seminar on 22 September 2022 co-organised by Singapore International Commercial Court, INSOL International & INSOL Asia, Singapore’s Second Minister for Law Mr Edwin Tong SC announced that Singapore will be undertaking “a root-and-branch study”^[2] of the judicial management regime in Singapore.

In its recent judgement in Re Avanti Communications Ltd [2023] EWHC 940 (Ch) ('Avanti') the High Court decided that in some circumstances a charge can take effect as a fixed charge despite the chargor having some flexibility to dispose of assets without the consent of the charge holder.

Background

This week, the Court considers a property owner’s claim to an easement over a maintenance road on federal land, and casts doubt on the longstanding “person aggrieved” standing requirement in bankruptcy appeals.

KIMBALL-GRIFFITH, L.P. v. BRENDA BURMAN, ET AL

The Court rejects a property owner’s claim to an easement over a maintenance road on federal land.

In brief 

The Court of Final Appeal (CFA), in its recent judgment in Re Guy Kwok-Hung Lam [2023] HKCFA 9 (link to judgment), has ruled on the proper approach towards a bankruptcy petition where the underlying dispute of the petition debt is subject to an exclusive jurisdiction clause (EJC).

The continued fall-out of the high-profile collapse of the Three Arrows crypto fund has seen another development, with the BVI Court permitting alternative service by Twitter after the collapsed fund's directors failed to appear for examination before the BVI Court. [1]

In Reel Action Sports Fishing Pty Ltd v Marine Engineering Consultants Pty Ltd, [1] the Court offered a timely warning to liquidators of the dangers of adopting and acting on an incorrect understanding of the ownership of contested property. The Court ordered damages against the liquidator personally, despite his position as agent for the company in liquidation.

Background

In a decision likely to be welcomed by both debtors and lenders, the High Court has held that a charge granted by Avanti Communications Limited (“Avanti”) was properly characterised as a fixed charge (rather than a floating charge) notwithstanding that the chargor retained an element of control over the charged assets. A key plank of the decision was that the relevant assets were not ‘fluctuating assets’ or ‘stock in trade’ that the chargor might be expected to dispose of in the ordinary course of its business.

In In re CII Parent, Inc.,¹ the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware affirmed a secured lender’s prepetition exercise of its proxy rights and its subsequent removal and replacement of the directors/managers of the debtor’s non-bankrupt subsidiaries, effectively cutting off the debtor’s ability to pursue effective relief in the bankruptcy case.

Relevant Facts

Avanti Communications Limited (Company) appointed administrators to affect a sale. The sale included items under a ‘Relevant Assets’ definition. These items consisted of were a satellite payload, certain equipment used in the operation of network and ground station facilities, certain satellite network filings and certain ground station licences which entitled the company to operate the ground station assets.