海航集团有限公司（于中国内地重整） [2021] HKCFI 2897（裁决日期：2021 年 9 月 16 日）
前言
海航集团有限公司（一家总部设在海南的大型企业，下称“公司”）的内地重整程序最近在香港获得认可。这是香港法院首次向 内地重整程序的破产管理人颁发认可令的案例。
The High Court has dismissed a challenge to Caffe Nero's company voluntary arrangement (CVA) in Young v Nero Holdings Limited. The Applicant in the proceedings, Mr Young, was a landlord of premises let to the First Respondent, Nero Holdings Limited (the Company) and challenged the Company's CVA under s 6(1)(a) and (b) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the Act).
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) has played a significant role in rescuing financially distressed companies as compared to the former insolvency law regimes which were provided in various statues having different objectives and processes. The initial success of the Code is attributable to various factors including the manner in which the Indian judiciary interpreted the law as well as the timely amendments of the Code by the Legislature.
On 16 September 2021, the Hong Kong Court made an unprecedented ruling by recognising, for the first time, proceedings for the reorganisation of the HNA Group Co Limited (‘Company‘) commenced in Mainland China under the Mainland Enterprise Bankruptcy Law (‘Mainland Reorganisation Proceedings’) (Re HNA Group Co Limited [2021] HKCFI 2897).
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Craig A. Gargotta rejected a debtor’s attempt to use “CARES Act” funds, which it did not actually qualify for, to pay creditors in its chapter 11 case.
It is now over 6 years since the Full Federal Court handed down its decision in the appeal case of Di Cioccio v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (as Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Di Cioccio) [2015] FCAFC 30 (Cioccio). The Australian Financial Security Authority recently revisited the Cioccio decision in light of a number of subsequent decisions.
A recent High Court judgment has provided some clarity on issues arising from the Debt Respite Scheme (Breathing Space Moratorium and Mental Health Crisis Moratorium) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020 (“the Regulations 2020”). Partner Alex Jay and Senior Paralegal Aarti Chadda examine the judgment and its interpretation of the Regulations 2020.
The court’s power to overturn the decisions of insolvency practitioners in a company’s external administration was highlighted in the recent case of Tuscan Capital Partners Pty Ltd v Trading Australia Pty Ltd (in liq), in the matter of Trading Australia Pty Ltd (in liq) (Proof of Debt) [2021] FCA 1061 (Tuscan).
Part 1: A Broad Overview of Bankruptcy
‘As privileged professionals, who live by the words of the English language, lawyers have a special duty to be clear in what they say and write’
When discussing any area of law, precision is essential.
A common source of confusion amongst both lawyers and the public generally is the difference between insolvency and bankruptcy. Though you may see the terms being used interchangeably (especially in legal dramas), the two concepts are distinct.
On 10 October, the Dubai Court of First Instance issued a potentially ground-breaking judgment in respect of directors’ liability in the context of corporate insolvency.
In particular, in the matter of the liquidation of the public company Marka PJSC (“Marka”), the Court held the company’s board of directors and managers personally and jointly liable for the company’s outstanding debts, totalling close to AED 450 million.