簡介

在Stanford International Bank Ltd (in liquidation) v HSBC Bank PLC [2021] EWCA Civ 535一案中，英國匯豐銀行（「匯豐」）被指違反Quincecare責任及提供不誠實的協助，因而被控疏忽。英國上訴法院（「上訴庭」）一致裁定匯豐勝訴，兩項申索均被駁回。

背景

於2009年倒閉清盤的Stanford International Bank Limited（「原告人」）在2003至2009年期間在匯豐持有多個帳戶（「涉案帳戶」）。原告人因被用作史上其中一個最大的龐茲騙局而欠債超過50億美元。原告人的清盤人（「清盤人」）向匯豐提出以下兩項申索：

The United States District Court for the Western District of New York recently upheld the findings of a Bankruptcy Court, which held that the in rem tax foreclosure of the subject property was a fraudulent conveyance. SeeDuvall v. Cty. of Ont., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 216970 (W.D.N.Y. 2021). The matter arose from the tax foreclosure of property (the “Property”) for the non-payment of taxes arising in 2015. In October 2016, the County issued a foreclosure petition and notices, advising that interested parties had the right to redeem the Property on or before January 13, 2017.

Introduction

In the case of Stanford International Bank Ltd (in liquidation) v HSBC Bank PLC [2021] EWCA Civ 535, which concerns a negligence claim for breach of Quincecare duty and dishonest assistance against the defendant bank, the English Court of Appeal (“CA”) unanimously found in favour of HSBC Bank plc (“HSBC”) and struck out both claims.

Background

Introduction  

The success of a scheme of arrangement in restructuring depends largely on the consent of the requisite statutory majority of the scheme creditors. To incentivise the creditors to commit to the proposal at an early stage, scheme companies may seek to enter into a lock-up agreement with the creditor, in which the creditor provides an undertaking to vote in favour of the scheme in exchange for certain benefits, such as consent fees.

Introduction

In this case, Re Kobian Pte Ltd (OS 1269 / 2020 in the Singapore High Court), Kobian Pte Ltd applied to the Singapore High Court for a moratorium to propose a scheme of arrangement with its creditors. The legal issues at stake were the necessary conditions to be fulfilled by an Applicant in order to obtain a moratorium under section 64 of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (IRDA).

2016 年破産倒産法(Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016)は、債権者が直面している債務者の未払 問題を解決するため、従来の倒産法を刷新する形で制定されました。2020 snapshot にて解説して以降も、 法の趣旨に沿う形で、および、昨今の COVID19 によるパンデミックの影響も踏まえながら、法は改正を 重ねてきました。また、主に実務上の観点から、各倒産法廷も法の発展に大きな役割を果たしています。 2021 年のインドの破産倒産法分野における重要なアップデート事項について、以下、列挙する形でま とめました。全国会社法審判所(以下「NCLT」)、全国会社法上訴裁判所(以下「NCLAT」)、最高裁判所 (以下「SC」)にて下された判決に加えて、政府が提案する改正事項についても取り上げています

This week’s TGIF considers Re C88 Project Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 126, a New South Wales Supreme Court case which provides guidance on the effect of omitting prescribed information, and including claims for disputed judgment interest, on the validity a statutory demand.

Key Takeaways

Chapter 6 of the Companies Act, 2008 affords a financially distressed company a fighting chance to restructure its financial obligations and avoid the destruction of value through liquidation for the duration of its formal chapter 6 business rescue proceedings. Such a moratorium is not available if a company seeks to conclude a restructure through a compromise or arrangement with all its creditors or members of any class of creditors.

Kireeva v Bedzhamov [2022] EWCA Civ 35 

The US Supreme Court tends to hear a couple of bankruptcy cases per term. Most of these cases deal with interpreting provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. However, every few years or so, the Supreme Court decides a constitutional issue in bankruptcy. Some are agita-inducing (Northern Pipeline, Stern), some less so (Katz). The upcoming case is a little more nuanced, but could have major consequences.