Through a trio of decisions, Mr Justice Harris has opened a new and commendable era for Hong Kong’s cross-border insolvency regime. The position under this new era is in brief thus:

First, the Hong Kong court is likely to use the debtor’s centre of main interests (“COMI”) as a yardstick to determine eligibility for recognition and assistance.

In Li Yiqing v Lamtex Holdings Ltd [2021] HKCFI 622, the Companies Court considered whether to put a Bermuda-incorporated company into immediate liquidation in Hong Kong or to adjourn the local winding-up petition to allow restructuring to proceed with the involvement of joint provisional liquidators appointed in Bermuda.

Companies planning to resist a winding up petition and seek an adjournment on the ground of progressing a restructuring plan are reminded to produce timely and sufficient evidence in support of their application for an adjournment, in particular evidence of creditors’ support, provides the Hong Kong Companies Court (Court) in Re Founder Information (Hong Kong) Limited [2021] HKCFI 311.

簡介

在最近 Re Lerthai Group Ltd [2021] HKCFI 207 一案中，原訟法庭澄清了法院在行使酌情權押 後清盤呈請以便公司能夠進行債務重組時會考慮的因素。法院裁定，公司不但須證明在重組後 能夠向要求立即還款的債權人償還債務，而且須證明它將會繼續經營盈利的業務，或至少在中 期內能夠支付其到期債務。

背景

2017 年 9 月 29 日，中國工商銀行（亞洲）有限公司（「工銀亞洲」）與勒泰商業有限公司 （「勒泰」）訂立了一份融資協議，融資金額為 1.5 億港元。根據協議規定，香港聯合交易所 有限公司主板上市的勒泰集團有限公司（「該公司」）須就此承擔共同及各別責任。由於勒泰 及該公司拖欠還款，工銀亞洲入稟追討泰勒超過 1.7 億港元的債務（「該債務」），並於 2020 年 5 月 19 日獲判勝訴。

2020 年 7 月 2 日，工銀亞洲就該債務對該公司發出法定要求償債書。其後，該公司被提出清 盤呈請（「該呈請」）。該公司申請押後該呈請以便進行債務重組，而由於該公司的債務總額 接近 40 億港元，工銀亞洲請求法院立即頒下清盤令，因為其認為押後該呈請是徒勞無功的。 其他獲發通知就該呈請出庭的債權人並沒有出席聆訊。

简介

在最近 Re Lerthai Group Ltd [2021] HKCFI 207 一案中，原讼法庭澄清了法院在行使酌情权押 后清盘呈请以便公司能够进行债务重组时会考虑的因素。法院裁定，公司不但须证明在重组后 能够向要求立即还款的债权人偿还债务，而且须证明它将会继续经营盈利的业务，或至少在中 期内能够支付其到期债务。

背景

2017 年 9 月 29 日，中国工商银行（亚洲）有限公司（「工银亚洲」）与勒泰商业有限公司 （「勒泰」）订立了一份融资协议，融资金额为 1.5 亿港元。根据协议规定，香港联合交易所 有限公司主板上市的勒泰集团有限公司（「该公司」）须就此承担共同及各别责任。由于勒泰 及该公司拖欠还款，工银亚洲入禀追讨泰勒超过 1.7 亿港元的债务（「该债务」），并于 2020 年 5 月 19 日获判胜诉。

2020 年 7 月 2 日，工银亚洲就该债务对该公司发出法定要求偿债书。其后，该公司被提出清 盘呈请（「该呈请」）。该公司申请押后该呈请以便进行债务重组，而由于该公司的债务总额 接近 40 亿港元，工银亚洲请求法院立即颁下清盘令，因为其认为押后该呈请是徒劳无功的。 其他获发通知就该呈请出庭的债权人并没有出席聆讯。

Introduction

In Re China Huiyuan Group Ltd [2020] HKCFI 2940, the Court of First Instance declined to wind up a Hong Kong-listed Cayman company as the Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that there was a real possibility of a tangible benefit to creditors upon the making of a winding up order.

Facts

SDF III Holdings Limited (the “Petitioner”) issued a petition to wind-up China Huiyuan Juice Group Limited (the “Company”) on the grounds of insolvency. The debt is not disputed.

Introduction

Public policy, “No-Action” and arbitration clauses, and the substitution of petitioners

Background

Bonds that are traded via clearing houses, such as Euroclear and Clearstream, often contain terms providing that there will be a trustee for the issue, who may be appointed by the participants in the relevant clearing system or by the beneficial owners.

Correcting a widespread mistake, Mr Justice Harris in Re China Ocean Industry Group Ltd [2021] HKCFI 247 held that the Court has no jurisdiction to make a validation order after a winding-up petition in respect of the issue of new shares and convertible bonds (“CBs”).

The correct position is that a company subject to a winding-up petition may issue new shares and CBs without a validation order.

Background to the widespread mistake and the present case

A crucial aspect of cross-border insolvency cooperation is the recognition of foreign proceedings and providing assistance to foreign office holders. A helpful explanation of the purpose of recognition was provided by Lord Hoffman in Cambridge Gas:“[t]he purpose of recognition is to enable the foreign office holder or the creditors to avoid having to start parallel insolvency proceedings and to give them the remedies to which they would have been entitled if the equivalent proceedings had taken place in the domestic forum”.