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.
根据测算，截止2022年年初，国内烂尾项目规模已经超过2万亿，随着2021年大型房地产公司接连“暴雷”，势必会产生更多的烂尾或接近烂尾的项目。对于商业逻辑自洽的单体项目破产重组，借助破产清算或重整程序分兵突围势必成为地方政府主导重整的最优路径。但是鉴于目前的房地产市场行情以及烂尾项目续建的特点，大部分重整投资人，尤其是财务投资类型的重整投资人更倾向于采用固定收益的方式进行项目重整，既能实现维护稳定的社会效果，又能最大限度地保证投资安全。因此，如何在当前法律架构下保障固定收益重整投资人的利益是本文中讨论的主要问题。
一 重整投资人的收益模式对比
重整投资人参与烂尾项目的收益模式大致可以分为固定收益模式、风险收益模式和固定加风险收益模式。不同的收益模式下重整投资人有不同的投资逻辑，也有不同的退出模式。我们从投入、收益、风险以及安全性角度对固定收益模式与风险收益模式进行了比较。
（一）固定收益模式
固定收益模式的特点是重整投资人投入重整资金，约定固定收益率，在最终财产变现所得中优先收回投资本金及收益，项目剩余资产全部用于债权清偿。
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.
The Hong Kong Court has broken yet more new ground by recognising Mainland reorganisation proceedings for the first time in Re HNA Group Co Limited [2021] HKCFI 2897.