Summary

A recent decision of the High Court of Hong Kong examined a liquidator’s powers to distribute a Hong Kong company’s assets in the PRC (being an RMB balance held in a Mainland bank account, a chose in action governed by Mainland law and subject to foreign exchange restrictions). Particularly, the Court looked at an unusual set of facts which meant there was some doubt as to whether the liquidator’s proposed distribution was in keeping with the key insolvency principles of:

1. collectivity;

There have been a number of smoke signals in the last few months around the increase of consumer debt in the UK and a focus on those firms providing consumer credit across the credit spectrum but particularly in the "sub-prime" or "near-prime" space.

Since the credit crunch, a number of consumer credit businesses have stepped in to fill a gap in the lending market. They give sub-prime or near-prime borrowers, who may find it difficult to obtain credit from traditional sources, with high-cost, short-term credit - instant access to funds.

The Supreme Court's decision in Lehman Waterfall I was handed down this morning. DLA Piper represents one of the successful appellants, Lehman Brothers Limited (in administration) (LBL).

The court was asked to consider certain issues relating to distributions in the estate of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE), an unlimited company in administration. Such issues arose due to a substantial anticipated surplus in LBIE and sought to resolve particular lacunas in UK insolvency legislation.

The Investment Bank Special Administration Regime (SAR) was introduced in 2011 in response to difficulties faced in the Lehman Brothers administration. Following a review of the regime by Peter Bloxham in 2014, and a Government consultation in 2016, the Treasury has introduced draft regulations to improve the regime - The Investment Bank (Amendment of Definition) and Special Administration (Amendment) Regulations 2017.

By now, you will all be aware of the recently gazetted the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Ordinance 2016 ("Amendment Ordinance"), heralding as it does a much anticipated refreshment and modernisation of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance ("CWUMPO") and the Companies (Winding up) Rules ("CWUR").

Given that the last major amendments to the corporate winding-up regime in Hong Kong occurred in 1984, reform in this area is long overdue.

In Erceg v Erceg¹ the New Zealand Court of Appeal ruled on the standing of bankrupt beneficiaries to bring claims against trustees. In addition, the Court considered the role of trustee discretion when determining beneficiary access to trust documentation. The decision is useful for trustees and beneficiaries alike, and provides clarity on the steps a Court may take when deciding whether or not to grant beneficiaries disclosure of trust information. Although this is a New Zealand decision, other common law courts such as Hong Kong may reach similar conclusions.

In Re Hin-Pro International Logistics Limited[1], the Hong Kong Court of First Instance held that it has jurisdiction to grant leave to amend a creditor's winding up petition to include debts accrued only after its presentation.

In Wong Tak Man, Stephen & Another v Cheung Siu Fai & Ors [2015] HMP 1431/2012, the Court held that transfers of funds made by a bankrupt were not transactions at undervalue or unfair preferences pursuant to s49 and s50 of the Bankruptcy Ordinance (the "BO"). This case serves as a useful reminder on how the Court will interpret s49 and s50 BO, as deemed to be applied in a corporate context by s.266B(1)(a) of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap 32).

Facts 

In its landmark decision of Kam Leung Sui Kwan v Kam Kwan Lai & Ors FACV 4/2015, issued yesterday, the Court of Final Appeal has brought some closure to the long running Yung Kee restaurant matter by making a winding up order against Yung Kee Holdings Limited (YKHL) with a 28-day stay to allow the parties to consider possible buy-out opportunities.  This reverses the previous decisions in the Court of First Instance and the

The case of Re Company A-E [2015] HCMP 2019/2015 demonstrates that the Court will take a practical approach in determining whether a funding arrangement infringes upon the common law rules against maintenance and champerty. The Court will consider commercial factors, such as the underlying rationale for the funding arrangement and the commercial character of the funder, alongside its analysis of the common law principles.