Just in time for Chinese New Year, a Hong Kong court has taken a major step forward in the developing law on cross-border insolvency by recognising a mainland Chinese liquidation for the first time. InJoint and Several Liquidators of CEFC Shanghai International Group Ltd [2020] HKCFI 167, Mr Justice Harris granted recognition and assistance to mainland administrators in Hong Kong so they could perform their functions and protect assets held in Hong Kong from enforcement.

In a unanimous 25 February panel decision, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that the trustee liquidating Bernard L. Madoff's investment firm can claw back billions in Ponzi scheme proceeds from investors who received the proceeds indirectly through non-U.S. "feeder funds" (funds that aggregate investor capital to invest in funds such as Madoff's).

On 9 November 2017, in a rare example of a contested recognition hearing, His Honour Judge Paul Matthews granted recognition of Agrokor’s extraordinary administration (EA) as a foreign main proceeding under the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (CBIR).

Decoding the code - China's new General Civil Law Rules: the first step towards a comprehensive civil code June 2017 Decoding the code - China's new General Civil Law Rules: the first step towards a comprehensive civil code June 2017 1 Overview and background On 15 March 2017, the People's Republic of China General Civil Law Rules (中华人民共和国 民法总则) (hereinafter referred to as the "GCLR") were formally adopted at the Fifth Session of the Twelfth National People's Congress. The GCLR will enter into force on 1 October 2017.

It has long been considered that lenders under a syndicated facility retain a right to seek to recover their portion of a loan directly following a payment default, typically by seeking the winding up of obligors. This is based on the several nature of the rights of finance parties which appears in clause 2 of the standard LMA terms. 

London & Westcountry Estates Limited ("LWE") went into administration in March 2012. The directors of LWE claimed that its bankers had mis-sold an interest rate swap product to them, and that they were, as a result, entitled to compensation. As LWE was in administration, it was for the administrators to bring the claim against the bankers. The administrators, however, declined to bring an action on behalf of LWE, and also declined to assign the cause of action to the directors.

Last week the High Court of England and Wales revoked a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) promoted by retailer Miss Sixty in a damning judgment that called into question the conduct of the practitioners involved. The case of Mourant & Co Trustees Limited v Sixty UK Limited (in administration) [2010] could end so-called guarantee stripping – where the CVA purports to discharge guarantees given by a third party – and provide powerful ammunition to landlords seeking to negotiate future CVAs with tenant companies.

The Court of First Instance held in Re Up Energy Development Group Limited [2022] HKCFI 1329 that where the three core requirements for winding-up a foreign company under section 327(1) of the Companies (Winding up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap. 32) (CWUMPO) are satisfied, the mere fact that the foreign company has been ordered to be wound up by the court in its place of incorporation is not a ground for the Hong Kong court to decline the making of a winding up order.

A former listco

The High Court has dismissed an application by a landlord creditor to overturn a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) implemented by coffee shop chain Caffé Nero. The CVA, previously approved by its creditors, compromised rent arrears and reduced future rents for the company's premises. The decision follows a series of previous high-profile challenges to retail and leisure CVAs.

The Second Circuit ruled last week in Lehman Bros. Special Fin. Inc. v. Bank of Am. Nat'l Ass'n, No. 18-1079 (2d Cir. 2020) that a Lehman Brothers affiliate cannot claw back $1 billion in payments made pursuant to swap agreements that were terminated when Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“LBHI”) and certain of its affiliates filed for bankruptcy in 2008. The panel concluded that the Bankruptcy Code provides a safe harbor for the liquidation of such swap agreements and also the distribution of proceeds from the collateral.