In a previous blog about the case of Mizen we considered the case from the point of view of “guarantee stripping”, looking at how the CVA dealt with those claims. However, the CVA was challenged on a number of bases, including whether it was unfairly prejudicial as a consequence of “vote swamping”.

In this blog, we look at that aspect of the case.

On March 22, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Court) granted the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) Motion for Default Judgment and entered a default judgment against Powhatan Energy Fund, LLC (Powhatan Energy Fund). The Court awarded FERC $3,465,108 in disgorgement and $16,800,000 in civil penalties.

A chapter 11 plan may be modified after votes have been solicited on the plan, but prior to confirmation, without providing creditors and interest holders with an amended disclosure statement and another opportunity to vote on the modified plan, provided, among other things, that the modifications do not adversely affect creditors or interest holders who previously voted to accept the plan.

There are unique risks that lenders should consider when extending credit to a real estate investment trust (“REIT”). The rights that a lender might expect to have when lending to an incorporated company are not necessarily the same as when lending to a REIT.

Following are this week’s summaries of the civil decisions of Court of Appeal for Ontario for the week of March 27 to 31, 2023. There were only two substantive decisions. One was a commercial leasing matter, and the other was a receivership matter.

Table of Contents

Civil Decisions

Jagtoo & Jagtoo, Professional Corporation v. Grandfield Homes Holdings Limited, 2023 ONCA 214

On 24 October 2022, the Italian Supreme Court issued judgment No. 31402/2022, ruling on the shareholder's legal standing to object to the approval of a bankruptcy arrangement pursuant to article 129 of Royal Decree No. 267 of 16 March 1942 (the “Bankruptcy Law”).

簡介

香港法院在香港將外國註冊公司清盤的法定司法管轄權，受到法院自設的限制所規限；該等限制被稱為法院行使上述司法管轄權之前所須符合的三大核心要求。

最近在Re Guoan International Ltd[2023] HKCU 939一案中，原訟法庭（「原訟庭」）需考慮是否將一間已被其註冊地點的法院清盤的外國註冊公司清盤。

案情

國安國際有限公司（「該公司」）的債權人Road Shine Developments Limited（「呈請人」）於2022年12月2日向香港法庭提出呈請，請求發出將該公司清盤的附屬命令。該公司於開曼群島註冊成立，於2022年2月28日被開曼群島大法院清盤，而袁子俊先生及Martin Trott先生於同日獲委任為其清盤人（「共同清盤人」）。反對呈請的債權人Chong Chin先生及Yao Sze Ling女士（統稱「反對債權人 」）基於兩個主要理由反對呈請：

Introduction:

The Supreme Court (“SC”) in the recent judgment of K. Paramasivam v. The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. & Anr.[1], held that a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) can be initiated against a corporate guarantor, even if the principal borrower is not a ‘corporate person’.

Factual Matrix and Arguments:

In Re Brew Still Pty Ltd (admin apptd)[2023] NSWSC 256, Black J of the New South Wales Supreme Court declined an application for an adjournment of one month brought by the voluntary administrator appointed to Brew Still Pty Ltd three days prior to the hearing of the winding up application.

Introduction

The statutory jurisdiction of Hong Kong Courts to wind up a foreign-incorporated company in Hong Kong is subject to self-imposed restraints that have been articulated as the “three core requirements” which must be satisfied before the court would exercise that jurisdiction.

In the recent case of Re Guoan International Ltd[2023] HKCU 939, the Court of First Instance (“CFI”) considered whether to wind up a foreign-incorporated company which has already been wound up by the court in its place of incorporation.