The exercise of the court’s discretionary jurisdiction to wind up an unregistered overseas company has again come under judicial spotlight in the recent case of Re China Medical Technologies Inc. (HCCW 435/2012).

The High Court in Hong Kong recently examined the circumstances in which a liquidator was able to depart from their implied duty not to disclose documents obtained from third parties under statute or in the furtherance of their legal duty.

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.

Lending to a foreign company? If you choose English law to govern your facility documents and provide for the English court to have exclusive jurisdiction, an English scheme may be a viable means of restructuring the debt later, if the need arises.

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:  

On December 21, 2011, in the High Court of England & Wales, Norris J handed down his judgment in Re Virtualpurple Professional Services Ltd [2011] EWHC 3487 (Ch), and in doing so he has become the first judge to cast real doubt on the decision of the Chancellor in Minmar (929) Limited v. Khalatschi [2011] EWHC 1159 (Ch). This is a welcome development and should at least begin the process of finally determining the correct formalities for an out-of-court appointment by directors where there is no qualifying floating charge holder.

Where lenders rely on floating charge security to make recoveries from companies in administration, some recent cases have massively increased the potential for administration expenses to swallow up those recoveries. The more well-known cases could just be the start. So, what are the potential risks? What can lenders do in the face of the law as it currently stands? What is going to happen next?

The Nortel decisions