After abortive attempts in 2000-2001, 2008-2009, and 2014 to introduce a statutory corporate rescue procedure, the Hong Kong Government has recently announced in a paper submitted to the Legislative Council that it will present the Companies (Corporate Rescue) Bill (the “Bill”) to the Legislative Council in early 2021. Once enacted, the Bill will introduce a corporate rescue procedure and insolvent trading provisions in Hong Kong.
The natural and most appropriate jurisdiction in which to wind up a company is its place of incorporation. The Hong Kong Companies Court, however, routinely deals with winding up petitions against companies which are incorporated outside Hong Kong, but listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange (“HKEx”). Given recent economic difficulties, the number of such petitions has been on the rise.
When the Hong Kong Court recognises offshore soft-touch provisional liquidation, will there be an automatic stay of proceedings in Hong Kong?
Recently, in Re FDG Electric Vehicles Limited [2020] HKCFI 2931, the Companies Court answered “no”. In doing so, the Court revisited the wording of the standard-form recognition order.
Soft-touch provisional liquidations
Statutory demand is a common and important tool in the winding up process. But recently, the Hong Kong Court of First Instance has reminded us that it is by no means a must.
1. Introduction
The long-running saga between Shandong Chenming Paper Holdings (“Shandong Chenming“) and Arjowiggins HKK2 Ltd (“Arjowiggins“) has continued with the Court of Appeal handing down its judgment on an appeal against a lower court judgment which had dismissed Shandong Chenming’s application to injunct Arjowiggins from presenting a winding-up petition against Shandong Chenming (Shandong Chenming Paper Holdings Limited v. Arjowiggins HKK2 Limited [2020] HKCA 670).
The High Court has expedited a trial at which it would be determined whether luxury car manufacturer McLaren Group could obtain the release of certain security for the benefit of its senior noteholders, failing which a financial restructuring which was contingent on that release could not be implemented: McLaren Holdings Ltd v US Bank Trustees Ltd [2020] EWHC 1892 (Ch). The court concluded that, absent determination of the proceedings within one month, McLaren Group would have no choice but to enter an insolvency process and that this justified expedition in this case.
The High Court has held that s.236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA 1986”) does not have extra-territorial effect, so that the court is not generally permitted to make an order requiring a person outside the UK to produce books and papers and give an account of their dealings with an insolvent company: Re Akkurate Ltd (in Liquidation) [2020] EWHC 1433 (Ch).
The Government on 20 May 2020 published the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill, which contains the most far-reaching reforms to UK insolvency law in over 30 years. The Bill has been introduced on an emergency basis in an attempt to ensure that otherwise financially viable companies survive during a period of unprecedented interruption and turmoil. However, it could upset the delicate balance between debtors and creditors under UK insolvency law.