In the latest edition of Going concerns, Stephenson Harwood's Asia restructuring and insolvency team touch on key changes in Singapore brought about by the recent Singapore Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (and where applicable, the impact on the shipping industry), and the positions in Singapore and Hong Kong on winding up petitions vs arbitration clauses.

Content

Get to know the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 ("IRDA") Winding up petitions vs arbitration clauses (SG) The prima facie standard of review prevails

Background

The Finance Act 2020 received Royal Assent on 22 July 2020 and will restore HMRC as a preferential creditor on insolvency (Crown Preference) with effect from 1 December 2020.

There had been speculation that the Government would shelve or at least postpone the reintroduction of Crown Preference in the wake of Covid-19. In fact, even before the pandemic, the proposals had been widely criticised by the restructuring and insolvency industry as harmful to the UK’s corporate rescue culture.

Introduction

The immediate focus for Britain’s authorities when dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic has been, quite rightly, to secure the best possible health outcome for the greatest number of people.

Subsequently, following a wave of concern regarding the best way of maintaining the financial status-quo for (i) businesses, (ii) employees, and (iii) individuals, the UK government announced an unprecedented series of assistance programmes, designed to counter the impact of previously unknown, and unquantifiable, distress.

Introduction

Clearly there are some major economic challenges ahead.

Many businesses may be able to withstand the challenges ahead but it may very well be that their trading counterparties (whether suppliers, customers or other stakeholders) will not. Whilst these times can represent an opportunity for some, such as potential acquirers (whether of businesses, assets or distressed debt), in most cases, the climate represents a threat to businesses.

Under the 1992 ISDA Master Agreement, following an event of default, there is either an automatic termination or the non-defaulting party can serve a notice designating an Early Termination Date. There then has to be a determination by the non-defaulting party of the compensation that is owed by one party or the other. This is done by closing out the transactions, which involves determining gains or losses in replacing or providing the economic equivalent of the terminated transactions. Once that is done, a statement is served setting out the calculations.

Welcome to this month's edition of our commercial and tech update, covering a wide range of topics from Facebook's lacklustre approach in dealing with IP infringement to further confirmation on the Courts' approach to liquidated damages.

(Mis)Adventures in advertising

Sit Kwong Lam v Petrolimex Singapore Pte. Ltd [2019] HKCA 1220案 (裁决日期：2019年11月1日)

But Ka Chon v Interactive Brokers LLC [2019] 5 HKC 238案 (裁决日期：2019年8月2日)

在Lasmos Limited v Southwest Pacific Bauxite (HK) Limited [2018] HKCFI 426一案中，当案件所涉债务是一项仲裁协议的标的时，公司法庭改变了原先在这种情况下如何裁定清盘程序的做法（被称为“Lasmos裁决”）。在近期的两起破产案件中，上诉法庭对Lasmos裁决发表了附带意见。

Lasmos案之前的裁决

上海华信国际集团有限公司（在中国大陆清算）[2020] HKCFI 167 (裁决日期：2020年1月13日)

这是香港法院首次向中国大陆法院指定的一家中国大陆公司的管理人发出承认令的案件。该案还考虑如果在送达第三债务人暂准令（garnishee order nisi）后，破产令在外国颁布，此时是否应将第三债务人暂准令转为绝对命令。

案件背景

上海华信国际集团有限公司（以下简称为“CEFC”）是一家在中国大陆注册成立的投资控股公司，是一家企业集团的一部分，该企业集团的业务包括资本融资、石油精炼和基础设施。 2019年11月，上海市第三中级人民法院（以下简称为“上海法院”）下令CEFC破产清算，并指定了联合管理人（以下简称为“管理人”）。

CEFC的资产包括对其在香港地区的子公司上海华信集团（香港）有限公司（以下简称为“香港子公司”）的重大债权，该子公司正在清算中。CEFC已就该债权提供债务证明。

China Lumena New Materials Corp (in provisional liquidation) [2020] HKCFI 338 (decision made on 23 January 2020 and reasons given on 4 March 2020)

This is the first reported scheme of arrangement in Hong Kong seeking to compromise debt governed by PRC law. Under the Gibbs Rule, a foreign composition does not discharge a debt unless it is discharged under the law governing the debt. In this case, the Hong Kong Court considered an exception to the Gibbs Rule and more generally the principles of sanctioning a scheme.

Background

Re Joint Provisional Liquidators of Moody Technology Holdings Ltd [2020] HKCFI 416

The Hong Kong Court has explained why there is no inconsistency between: (a) its domestic insolvency law which does not permit the appointment of provisional liquidators purely for the purposes of restructuring the company; and (b) common law recognition of foreign "soft-touch" provisional liquidators.

What is a soft-touch provisional liquidator?