In a move largely welcomed by unsecured creditors, on 13 May 2021, the Court of Final Appeal in Hong Kong (CFA) handed down its judgment in Re Hsin Chong Construction Co. Ltd [2021] HKCFA 14 (the CFA Judgment), whereby disposition of a company’s residual rights and interests under a joint venture agreement after the commencement of its liquidation was held to be void.

Facts

Joint Venture

Important developments in insolvency law from Sun Electric Power Pte Limited v RCMA Asia Pte Ltd (formerly known as Tong Teik Pte Ltd) [2021] SGCA 60

Recently, in Sun Electric Power Pte Limited v RCMA Asia Pte Ltd (formerlyknown as Tong Teik Pte Ltd) [2021] SGCA 60, the Singapore Court of Appeal made several important clarifications about the law of insolvency in Singapore. In particular, the Court of Appeal clarified that:

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai has held that in a Petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, only the debt and default need to be looked in to and that the value of the security would have no bearing on the legal requirement, which when satisfied would trigger the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).

The Corporate defaulter had plead that assets mortgaged and or hypothecated to the financial creditor were of a very high value and hence, the dues were secured by the said assets.

On June 20, 2021, CP Holdings LLC and Pacrim U.S. LLC, holding companies for a portfolio of non-debtor subsidiaries which own and operate assisted living and memory care residences and offer third-party management services in the senior care space, filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 21-10950).

INTRODUCTION:

The Supreme Court in a recent judgment of Indus Biotech Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kotak India Venture (Offshore) Fund [AIR 2021 SC 1638] has settled an important question of law: ‘whetheran application filed under Section 8 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘A&C Act’) can be said to be maintainable in a proceeding initiated under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’)’.

Der Erwerb eines Betriebs aus der Insolvenz kann Tücken haben – insbesondere, wenn die betriebliche Altersversorgung der Mitarbeiter im Spiel ist. Bleibt es hier bei der erwerberfreundlichen Rechtsprechung des BAG?

In a recent High Court judgment, Judge Briggs considered the process to be followed where, in insolvency proceedings, a liquidator or administrator assigns a cause of action to another party under s246ZD of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the Act), and the assignee mistakenly brings an application under the Insolvency Rules 2016 (the Rules) when the claim should properly have been brought under Civil Procedure Rules.

Background

A recent decision of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court clarified the question whether a Swiss ancillary bankruptcy estate has standing to contest a schedule of claims of a bankrupt Swiss third-party debtor if the foreign bankruptcy estate filed the respective claims directly and regardless of the recognition of the foreign bankruptcy decree. In essence, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court denied the standing of the ancillary bankruptcy estate as it may in such cases not be considered a creditor of the respective claims.

These case summaries first appeared in LexisNexis’ Insolvency Case Alerter. They represent some of the more interesting insolvency decisions to have been published recently.

This summary covers:

1.Re PGH Investments Ltd [2021] EWHC 533 (Ch)

2.Re Mederco (Cardiff) Ltd [2021] EWHC 386 (Ch)

3.Lyle v Bedborough [2021] EWHC 220 (Ch)

4.Re TXU Ltd, Insolvency and Companies Court, 2 March 2021

5.Re Port Finance Investment Ltd [2021] EWHC 378 (Ch)

Good afternoon.

Following are this week’s summaries of the Court of Appeal for Ontario for the week of June 14, 2021.

In Kelava v. Spadacini, the Court found that a Deputy Judge of the Small Claims Court has the jurisdiction to make a representation order relying on Rule 12 of the ordinary Rules of Civil Procedure by analogy. The overriding consideration in Small Claims Court matters is access to justice.