Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Beijing Kerry Centre South Tower, Ste. 823 No. 1 Guang Hua Rd., Chaoyang District Beijing 100020, China T: +86.10.5876.3500 F: +86.10.5876.3501 Morgan Lewis Stamford LLC 10 Collyer Quay #27-00 Ocean Financial Centre Singapore 049315 T: +65 6389 3000 F: +65 6389 3099 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Roppongi Hills Mori Tower 24th Fl.

High Court provides guidance on voluntary administration and creditors’ meetings under COVID-19 Alert Level 4

A recent decision of the High Court provides helpful guidance for insolvency practitioners on how aspects of the voluntary administration regime should operate in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has placed immense strain across the whole of the economy and raises the issue of how company directors should balance their obligations to shareholders and creditors while ensuring that they protect themselves from any personal liability.

Companies and their directors in the following sectors of the economy face difficult decisions:

随着内地与香港的经济贸易往来日益频繁，近年来破产案件中需要通过跨境破产合作解决的问题也日益增多。虽然2019年1月发布的《关于内地与香港特别行政区法院相互认可和执行民商事案件判决的安排》仍未将破产（清盘）案件包括在内，但是近年来实践中已经开始出现一些内地与香港法院互相承认对方破产（清盘）程序的效力、承认对方破产管理人（清盘人）地位的案例，这一新动向值得跨境投资者关注。

内地对香港清盘程序的态度

根据最高法2011年对《企业破产法》第五条的解释，香港法院作出的“清盘令不属于《企业破产法》下内地法院应认可和执行的境外法院的判决、裁定”。但是，最高法2014年审结的“新加坡中华环保案”为香港清盘人在内地法院审理的案件中代表被清盘公司诉讼创造了可能性。

该案原告是一家新加坡企业，已经破产并被指定了管理人。最高法院援引《涉外民事关系法律适用法》第十四条的规定，认为该案的争议问题实质是原告破产企业的代表人及其诉讼地位、相关权利的认定，应当适用原告登记地法律即新加坡法，进而认可破产管理人有权代表公司继续诉讼。根据这一裁判思路，内地法院有可能对已被清盘的香港公司适用其注册登记地法律，即香港法律，来认定香港清盘人在内地法院案件中的诉讼地位及相关权利，从而使香港清盘人有权代表被清盘公司在内地法院参加诉讼活动。

Recent Hong Kong cases have highlighted varying approaches regarding the impact of arbitration clauses on insolvency proceedings, in particular, on the Court’s discretion to make a winding-up order where a debt is disputed.

Recent judgments have varied between the so-called Traditional Approach which requires the company-debtor to show a genuine dispute on substantial grounds and the Lasmos Approach which requires the company only to commence arbitration in a timely manner.

Hong Kong Court refuses to grant an antisuit injunction to stay a winding-up petition where an arbitration agreement existed

21 August 2020

The Hong Kong Court of First Instance has dismissed an application by a British Virgin Islands (BVI) company (C) for an interim anti-suit injunction against proceedings commenced by a Cayman Islands company (D) for the winding-up of the BVI company in the High Court of the BVI.

The tragically unforeseen current novel coronavirus (COVID-19) global pandemic has brought unprecedented challenges to all aspects of Hong Kong society including the health of its citizens, the economy and the business community. Economic activities across most sectors globally are being devastated. The dire economic situation in Hong Kong has been exacerbated by the trade war between Washington and Beijing and the new national security law.

Hong Kong Court refuses to grant an antisuit injunction to stay a winding-up petition where an arbitration agreement existed

19 August 2020

The Hong Kong Court of First Instance has dismissed an application by a British Virgin Islands (BVI) company (C) for an interim anti-suit injunction against proceedings commenced by a Cayman Islands company (D) for the winding-up of the BVI company in the High Court of the BVI.

Shandong Chenming Paper Holdings Limited v Arjowiggins HKK 2 Limited CACV 158/2017 (date of judgment 5 August 2020)¹

Introduction

1. Introduction

Under Hong Kong law, a company shall be deemed to be unable to pay its debts if a creditor, to whom the company is indebted of at least HKD 10,000 (around USD 1,290), has served on the company a demand requiring the company to pay and the company has not done so within three weeks.