How does an arbitration clause, or an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of foreign courts, affect insolvency proceedings?
The effect of an arbitration clause, or an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of foreign courts, on insolvency proceedings has been a topic of longstanding debate in the Courts of Hong Kong, England and other common law jurisdictions.
Another Hong Kong court decision has questioned whether the judgment in the leading case of Lasmos Limited v. Southwest Pacific Bauxite (HK) Limited [2018] HKCFI 426, may have gone too far when it suggested that an arbitration clause in an agreement should generally take precedence over a creditor's right to present a winding-up petition.
Just in time for the Chinese New Year, a Hong Kong court has taken a major step forward in the developing law on cross-border insolvency by recognizing a mainland Chinese liquidation for the first time. In the Joint 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.
The Hong Kong Court of Appeal has suggested that a previous Court decision may have overstepped the mark by suggesting that an arbitration clause in a client agreement should generally take precedence over a creditor's right to present a winding-up petition.
The new Hong Kong Companies Ordinance is planned to come into operation in the first quarter of 2014. This wholesale renovation of the law governing the operation of companies in Hong Kong repeals almost all of the existing provisions of the Companies Ordinance with a few exceptions, including the existing insolvency and winding-up provisions. These will remain in their current form and be retitled as the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance.
A recent UK Supreme Court decision establishes that where a director unlawfully transfers property to a company he controls, a subsequent breach of duty claim will not be subject to a limitation period.
The provision in question under the UK Limitation Act is mirrored in the Hong Kong Limitation Ordinance (Cap 347), so it will be interesting to see whether this decision will be applied by the Hong Kong Courts.
A recent UK Supreme Court decision establishes that where a director unlawfully transfers property to a company he controls, a subsequent breach of duty claim will not be subject to a limitation period.
The provision in question under the UK Limitation Act is mirrored in the Hong Kong Limitation Ordinance (Cap 347), so it will be interesting to see whether this decision will be applied by the Hong Kong Courts.
The new Hong Kong Companies Ordinance is planned to come into operation in the first quarter of 2014. This wholesale renovation of the law governing the operation of companies in Hong Kong repeals almost all of the existing provisions of the Companies Ordinance with a few exceptions, including the existing insolvency and winding-up provisions. These will remain in their current form and be retitled as the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance.
Just in time for the Chinese New Year, a Hong Kong court has taken a major step forward in the developing law on cross-border insolvency by recognizing a mainland Chinese liquidation for the first time. In the Joint 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.
The Hong Kong Court of Appeal has suggested that a previous Court decision may have overstepped the mark by suggesting that an arbitration clause in a client agreement should generally take precedence over a creditor's right to present a winding-up petition.