Hundreds and hundreds of claims for personal injury and property damage associated with PFAS contamination have been accumulating in the courtroom of a Federal Judge in South Carolina. A little over four years ago the Federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation determined that Federal claims that Aqueous Film-Forming Foams (AFFF) containing PFAS used to fight fires had contaminated drinking water had enough in common that they should all be sent to Federal Judge Gergel in South Carolina for disposition.

On 15 May 2023 (with Reasons for Decision delivered on 18 May 2023), the Companies Court made a winding-up order against Dangdai International Investments Ltd (當代國際投資有限公司) (“the Company”) which is in turn wholly owned by Wuhan Dangdai Science & Technology Industries (Group) Company Ltd (武漢當代科技產業集團股份有限公司) (“Wuhan Dangdai”).

In the latest issue of the Restructuring Department Bulletin, we highlight the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision holding that Section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code is not jurisdictional. We also discuss two Bankruptcy Court decisions from the Southern District of New York, one which held that the “knowledge exception” to Section 546(e)’s safe harbor defense was sufficiently pled to survive dismissal, and the other which found that service of a discovery subpoena on the foreign debtor’s founders via Twitter was adequate.

A claim under s 127 is restitutionary (see Hollicourt (Contracts) Ltd v Bank of Ireland and Ahmed v Ingram), and in a case involving the payment of money is for unjust enrichment (see Officeserve Technologies Ltd v Annabel’s (Berkeley Square) Ltd).

The recent case of Dolfin Asset Services Ltd v Stephens & Anor (Re Dolfin Financal (UK) Ltd) [2023] EWHC 123 (Ch) (“Dolfin“) concerned a special administration, but it has relevance to administrators more generally. In particular, when it comes to the judge’s view of what is meant by the word “consider” – which is phrase used in the insolvency legislation when it comes to making decisions.

In its recent judgment in Guy Kwok-Hung Lam v Tor Asia Credit Master Fund LP [2023] HKCFA 9, the Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong has provided guidance as to how an exclusive jurisdiction clause in a financing agreement impacts on the ability to bring a bankruptcy or winding up petition in Hong Kong. In light of prior inconsistent judgments on the issue, the CFA decision provides welcome clarity as to the impact of exclusive jurisdiction clause on insolvency proceedings and when it may still be appropriate to commence them.

Background

In the recent case of Re Avanti Communications Ltd (In Administration)¹, the High Court considered whether charges granted by a satellite business over certain equipment and intangible assets (the Relevant Assets) were fixed or floating.

In a previous article, 'In case of emergency: Using emergency power provisions to appoint a voluntary administrator' we discussed the use of emergency powers in a company’s constitution to appoint a voluntary administrator to a company, as well as the use of court assistance to cure defects in an appointment.

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.