The Court of First Instance in Hong Kong recently provided a timely reminder that the jurisdiction to wind up a foreign company is an exorbitant one and therefore winding up petitions and applications for leave to serve them out of the Hong Kong jurisdiction must be properly thought through and drafted before the Court will consider giving leave to serve out, and they may be liable to be struck out entirely if not.

The Supreme Court has today ruled on the ranking of certain pension liabilities when issued to companies in administration or liquidation.

The case of Lau Siu Hung and Another v Krzysztof Marszalek and Another [2013] HKEC 936 appears to be the first authority in Hong Kong on the effect an annulment of a bankruptcy order has on debts which remain unproven when an annulment order is made.  On 17 June 2013, the Court of First Instance held that an annulment of bankruptcy cannot prohibit a creditor, who has not proved his debts before, to obtain relief from the court after the annu

In a judgment handed down on 6 March 2013, the Hong Kong High Court elaborated on the guiding principles the court will follow when determining whether or not it should exercise its 'exorbitant' jurisdiction to wind up an unregistered overseas company 'which prima facie is beyond the limits of territoriality'.

In Rubin v Eurofinance SA and New Cap Reinsurance Corporation (in liquidation) and another v AE Grant and others [2012] UKSC 46, the UK Supreme Court held that:  

The Supreme Court handed down its judgment in relation to the client money application in the matter of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE). The judgment has a number of implications for firms who hold client money, and for firms who hold money with banks and other firms as clients themselves. The complicated and controversial nature of the appeal is reflected in the sharply opposing opinions of the Lords in relation to two of the three issues considered.

On 16 September 2010 the UK Treasury published a consultation paper seeking views on its proposals for a new Special Administration Regime (SAR) for investment firms. The Consultation included draft regulations that will implement the SAR (the Draft Regulations).

The Consultation was prompted by the failure of Lehman Brothers in 2008 which posed (and continues to pose) serious challenges for insolvency regimes around the world.

The Insolvency Service recently opened a consultation (the "Consultation") on its proposals for a restructuring moratorium. Under the proposals, eligible companies satisfying certain qualifying conditions would be able to apply to court for a moratorium to prevent creditor action (a "Moratorium"). The Moratorium is not intended to be an alternative to formal insolvency for companies that are already insolvent but is intended to support viable companies reach a compromise with their creditors.

On 1 May 2009, the administrators of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) ("LBIE") applied to the English High Court for directions on certain issues relating to "Client Money" (as defined in the UK Financial Services Authority's Client Assets Rules, the "CASS Rules") held by LBIE. LBIE was regulated by the FSA and was required to comply with the CASS Rules.

On 1 May 2009, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (the "Administrators") submitted an Ordinary Application to the High Court, seeking directions concerning the obligations of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (In Administration) ("LBIE"), in relation to the handling of client money received by it prior to entering into administration (the "Application"). A copy of the Application can be found here.