Overview

In a recent judgment in Target Insurance Company Limited v Nerico Brothers Limited & Lee Cheuk Fung Jerff [2025] HKCA 1024 the Court of Appeal has clarified that a director can be made personally liable for the costs incurred by a company under their control and that unreasonably opposes its winding up.

Background

The bankruptcy court presiding over the FTX Trading bankruptcy last month issued a memorandum opinion addressing valuation of cryptocurrency-based claims and how to “calculate a reasonable discount to be applied to the Petition Date market price” for certain cryptocurrency tokens.

In the recent decision in Blockchain Group Company Limited (in liquidation) v. PKF Hong Kong Limited¹, Le Pichon DHCJ decided that despite an error resulting in a protective writ naming the defendant as a limited company and formerly a firm, the relevant provisions to amend a party’s name could not be used to essentially replace the limited company with the firm.

The recent judgment in Re Proman International Limited¹ reaffirms the court's stance on the suitability of liquidators and the standards of disclosure required of them.

Who owns cryptocurrency held by a cryptocurrency exchange? Do the cryptocurrency assets belong to the customers who deposited the crypto with the exchange, or do the cryptocurrency assets belong to the exchange itself? The answer to this question will have huge significance, both in terms of creditor recoveries as well as preferential transfer liability exposure.

On 12 July 2023, the Legislative Council enacted the Bankruptcy and Companies Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Ordinance 2023, a transformative initiative to modernise the filing and notice processes under the Bankruptcy Ordinance (Cap 6) and the Companies (Winding-Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap 32). With the amendments, the Official Receiver’s Office (ORO) introduces the Electronic Submission System (ESS) to bring the ORO and insolvencies into the 21st century.

Changes effective from 29 December 2023

In this second part of our blog exploring the various issues courts need to address in applying the Bankruptcy Code to cryptocurrency, we expand upon our roadmap.

Many authorities and commentators have considered cryptocurrencies, and the blockchains that undergird them, as a potentially disruptive force in the financial industry. Now, that disruption has made its way to a different side of finance—bankruptcy, and during the past year, the United States bankruptcy courts have had to confront many unexpected challenges involved in dealing with cryptocurrency.

How close is too close? The answer to this question can have dire implications for people and companies involved in the cannabis industry who wish to seek bankruptcy protection.

In the landmark judgment by Linda Chan J in Re Gatecoin Ltd (in liquidation) [2023] HKCFI 914, the Court of First Instance held that cryptocurrencies were property under Hong Kong law capable of being held for distribution to creditors (or beneficiaries if they were trust assets) for the purposes of administrating an insolvent estate. In this article, the authors consider the Court’s ruling and its wider implications for the insolvency regime in Hong Kong, focusing on fraud claims and reviewable transactions in the cryptocurrency context.