A recent decision of the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) has extended the liability of legal advisors in crisis situations.
Background
Under German law, a lawyer may be liable not only to his client, but also to a third party, if the third party has a special interest in the lawyer's performance. The Bundesgerichtshof has clarified that managing directors and even shadow directors may have such a special interest and may claim damages from their company’s legal advisor for breach of duty (Pflichtverletzung).
If a debt arises from a contract that contains an exclusive jurisdiction clause (EJC) in favour of a foreign court, how will the Hong Kong court deal with a bankruptcy petition based on that debt? A highly anticipated judgment from Hong Kong’s highest court suggests that the bankruptcy petition will likely be dismissed, and that the foreign EJC will be given effect. But, as we will discuss below, the Court seems to leave other possibilities open, depending on the facts in a particular case.
Under German law, company directors have a statutory duty to file for insolvency once the company has become insolvent or over-indebted. Company directors can be held personally liable for any payments they make after that point of time unless they prove that they exercised reasonable care, skill and diligence. After the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) clarified that standard terms and conditions of German D&O insurance contracts cover this directors’ liability, many D&O insurers have tried to find new ways to avoid their coverage.
A recent Hong Kong Court of Appeal decision examined a creditor’s right to commence bankruptcy/insolvency proceedings where the petition debt arises from an agreement containing an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of a foreign court: Guy Kwok-Hung Lam v Tor Asia Credit Master Fund LP [2022] HKCA 1297.
Historically, the Hong Kong courts have generally recognised foreign insolvency proceedings commenced in the jurisdiction in which the company is incorporated. This may no longer be the case in Hong Kong following the recent decision of Provisional Liquidator of Global Brands Group Holding Ltd v Computershare Hong Kong Trustees Ltd [2022] HKCFI 1789 (Global Brands).
Historically, the common law has only recognised foreign insolvency proceedings commenced in the jurisdiction in which the company is incorporated. This may no longer be the case in Hong Kong. Going forward, a Hong Kong court will now recognise foreign insolvency proceedings in the jurisdiction of the company’s “centre of main interests” (COMI). Indeed, it will not be sufficient, nor will it be necessary, that the foreign insolvency process is conducted in a company’s place of incorporation.
On 6 June 2022, Mr Justice Harris sanctioned a Hong Kong scheme of arrangement for Rare Earth Magnesium Technology Group (the Company) in re Rare Earth Magnesium Technology Limited [2022] HKFCI 1686 (Rare Earth).
In a ruling issued on 3 March 2022 (IX ZR 78/20) the German Federal Court (BGH) has again raised the requirements for proving that a debtor, when making a payment, intended to disadvantage their creditors.
Background
We previously wrote about the Court’s attitude to liquidators’ applications for directions on matters arising in a compulsory winding up (i.e., by the court) under section 200 of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance, Cap.
In Re Grand Peace Group Holdings Limited [2021] HKCFI 2361, the Hong Kong Court refused to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to wind up an offshore holding company due to difficulties in the recognition of Hong Kong liquidators in the BVI.
Background