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.

With rising insolvency rates, driven in particular by the number of creditors’ voluntary liquidations reaching record highs, the decision in the recent Court of Appeal case of PSV 1982 Limited v Langdon [2022] EWCA Civ 1319 serves as a timely reminder for directors of the personal risks involved in re-using the name of a liquidated company.

With administration figures creeping back up after falling to low levels during the pandemic, the number of pre-pack sales of businesses in administration also appears to be on the increase. In such transactions, a purchaser acquires all, or substantially all, of the business and assets of the insolvent company from the administrator, with the terms of the deal being agreed pre-appointment and completion usually taking place immediately after the administrator takes office.

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.

Key Points

On 22 July 2022, judgment was handed down in relation to the sanction of the first Part 26A restructuring plan to be proposed by a small–medium enterprise (SME) in Re Houst Limited [2022] EWHC 1941 (Ch). The restructuring plan (RP) procedure set out in Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) has been widely considered to be out of the reach of SMEs due to excessive cost. The decision is also an interesting one for other reasons, notably the cram-down of HMRC as a dissenting creditor.

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).

The Insolvency Service has published a consultation on the implementation of two UNCITRAL "model laws" relating to insolvency: the Model Law on Recognition and Enforcement of Insolvency-Related Judgments (MLIJ), and the Model Law on Enterprise Group Insolvency (MLEG). The UK has already enacted legislation based on the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, in the form of the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (CBIR).