I dagarna har konkursen i Componenta Främmestad AB avslutats. Bolaget försattes i konkurs under hösten 2019 varvid Jonas Premfors utsågs till konkursförvaltare.

Bolaget har haft en årsomsättning om ca 800 mkr och utgjort ett dotterbolag inom den finska börsnoterade Componenta-koncernen. Verksamheten har bestått i tillverkning av chassikomponenter till den tunga fordonsindustrin med kunder i ett antal europeiska länder samt i Australien och Sydamerika.

Över 8 200 företag försattes i konkurs under 2023, vilket innebär en ökning med 31 procent jämfört med föregående år, enligt statistik från Creditsafe. 2023 går till historien som det högsta konkursåret sedan Creditsafe började med sina mätningar 1999.

Konkursstormen som pågått i sjutton månader har drabbat både stora och små företag i alla län och branscher. Värst drabbat är sportsektorn, bilhandlare och bygg. Under året gick 1,08 procent av Sveriges aktiebolag i konkurs. Höga konkurstal kommer fortsätta prägla 2024.

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.

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.

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).

We previously wrote about the Court’s attitude to liquidators’ applications for directions on matters arising in a compulsory winding up (i.e., by the court) under section 200 of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance, Cap.

In Re Grand Peace Group Holdings Limited [2021] HKCFI 2361, the Hong Kong Court refused to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to wind up an offshore holding company due to difficulties in the recognition of Hong Kong liquidators in the BVI.

Background

As discussed in our previous blog post, the decision for provisional liquidators to apply for directions on the distribution of funds can be a difficult one to make.