Tanner De Witt acted for Chan Ho Yin (also known as Michael Chan) of Kroll (HK) Ltd and Elaine Hanrahan, the Joint Liquidators of Bull’s-Eye Limited (in Liquidation) (“BEL”) which was wound up in the BVI on 15 January 2024. BEL is a company connected to Hua Han Health Industry Holdings Limited (formerly listed on Main Board of the HKEx, stock code 587) (“Hua Han”). Michael Chan is also a one of the joint and several liquidators of Hua Han. BEL held roughly 30% shares in Hua Han and its sole shareholders and directors were the founders of Hua Han.

Given Hong Kong’s status as an international financial hub and the fact that more than 75% of the companies listed on the main board of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange are incorporated in either the Cayman Islands or in Bermuda (only around 11 percent are incorporated in Hong Kong), it is common for foreign liquidators to conduct investigations in Hong Kong.

As a general recap (following recent developments in the jurisprudence) [1], in order to seek recognition and assistance from the Hong Kong Court, a foreign liquidator would have to establish the following:

5 Most Impactful Hong Kong Restructuring and Insolvency cases in 2023

2023 was a busy year for the restructuring and insolvency industry in Hong Kong. we had a ground breaking decision of the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) ruling on the conflict between dispute resolution clauses and the Court’s jurisdiction to wind-up/bankrupt a debtor. We also saw the court extend and strengthen its reach to assist insolvency officeholders (whether appointed in Hong Kong or elsewhere). 

This note updates a series of Tanner De Witt articles on the interaction between dispute resolution clauses and the Court’s insolvency jurisdiction. The previous articles are:

The landmark Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) decision of Re Guy Lam[1] has generated numerous articles written by practitioners and academics on the interaction between exclusive jurisdiction clauses and the court’s jurisdiction to wind up or bankrupt a debtor. Following the CFA’s decision, the Guy Lam bankruptcy continued to impact our legal landscape when the Court of Appeal handed down a novel decision on the treatment of the costs and expenses of the bankrupt trustees (for whom TDW acted) in circumstances where the bankruptcy order was overturned in appeal[2].

Where a bankruptcy order is set aside after a successful appeal by the debtor, who should be liable for the fees and expenses of the trustees in bankruptcy (whether the Official Receiver (as provisional trustee) or trustees appointed by the creditors)? Should such fees and expenses be borne by the bankruptcy estate, or should the unsuccessful petitioner bear those costs on the basis the bankruptcy order ought not to have been made in the first place?

The recent Hong Kong Court of First Instance decision of Re Shandong Chenming Paper Holdings Limited marks another intersection between the public domain of insolvency and the private realm of arbitration.

In this and previous decisions, the Hong Kong courts have grappled with the issue of which should take priority – a winding-up petition, or the contractual term in the relevant contract that states disputes are to be resolved through arbitration or litigation.

Two primary considerations fuel this debate:

Introduction

In a landmark decision issued in July, Re Leading Holdings Group Limited [2023] HKCFI 1770, the Hong Kong Courts addressed, for the first time, the right of an investor of a global note to present a winding-up petition as a contingent creditor.

The Case

The relevant company was incorporated in the Cayman Islands and was listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. It issued 12% Senior Notes which were due in 2022 and the petitioner was the beneficial owner of a sub-interest in those notes.