In a pair of significant judgments issued on the same day, Re China Huiyuan Juice Group Ltd. [2020] HKCFI 2940 and FDG Electric Vehicles Ltd. [2020] HKCFI 2931, the Honorable Mr. Justice Harris has once again issued highly relevant and timely guidance on key cross-border insolvency issues.
In another groundbreaking decision, the Hong Kong court in Re Ando Credit Ltd [2020] HKCFI 2775, has appointed provisional liquidators over a Hong Kong-incorporated investment manager for the express purpose of allowing the liquidators to seek recognition in the Mainland. The judgment is the latest in a series of judgments facilitating cross-border recognition and enforcement of assets and takes the degree of potential cooperation envisaged to a new level.
Application unopposed
Recent missed payments by companies including by one of China's largest coal companies, Yongcheng Coal and Electricity Holding Group, based in Henan, have shaken investors' faith that state-owned enterprises (SOEs) enjoy implicit backing from the authorities, irrespective of their underlying performance. As corporates issue new bonds to pay off old debts as they fall due, thereby 'kicking the can down the road' it is feared that more defaults could follow. Yields on some bonds are reported to have risen to 34 percent, an indicator of the perceived increased risk.
The Hong Kong government is proposing much-anticipated legislation for the introduction of a corporate rescue procedure and insolvent trading regime. Hong Kong has, for years, struggled to introduce a statutory corporate rescue procedure (CRP), having previously made unsuccessful attempts in 2000-2001, 2008-2009, and 2014. Now – with COVID-19 severely impacting the economy – the government has finally tabled the Companies (Corporate Rescue) Bill.
In a pair of recent contrasting judgments, Re Agritrade Resources Ltd [2020] HKCFI 1967 and Re Rare Earth Magnesium Technology Group Holdings Ltd [2020] HKCFI 2260, the Hong Kong Court has once again confirmed its pragmatic approach towards applications by foreign liquidators and provisional liquidators for recognition and assistance in Hong Kong. The judgments emphasize the importance of adhering to the standard forms of order adopted by the Hong Kong courts in respect of such applications, and the need for any departure from the standard form to be fully justified.
In a recent judgment, the Hong Kong Court reiterated the principles outlined in Kam Leung Sui Kwan v. Kam Kwan Lai [2015] 18 HKCFAR 501 (Yung Kee), the case concerning the famous roastgoose restaurant in the heart of Hong Kong's Central district, when determining whether to exercise its discretion to wind up a foreign-incorporated company. In this case, the court also refused to grant a stay of the petition in favor of arbitration.
Florida escape
The Singapore High Court has recently granted recognition to Hong Kong liquidation proceedings and liquidators for the first time under Singapore's enactment of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Model Law on Cross Border Insolvency (the model law).
The Hong Kong court has confirmed that – going forward – the court is ready to recognize and assist a foreign insolvency process conducted in the company’s center of main interests (COMI) and that it will no longer be necessary for the foreign insolvency process to be carried out in a company’s place of incorporation. The judgment sets out a practical roadmap for the future of cross-border insolvency in Hong Kong, where listed companies that use complex holding company structures find themselves in difficulty.
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.
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