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).
引言
近年来,伴随着经济形势与产业政策的变化,融资租赁成为了争议高发领域,并且日益呈现出争议案件数量多、标的金额大等特点。以上海地区为例,根据上海高级人民法院发布的《2020年度上海法院金融商事审判情况通报》,在2020年上海法院受理的一审金融商事案件中,融资租赁合同纠纷的案件数量位居第三,同比上升65.93%,争议标的金额则位居第二,仅次于金融借款合同纠纷。而在诸多争议之中,对于租赁物所有权的保护始终是多年以来困扰我国融资租赁从业者、司法裁判者甚至是立法者的一大难题。[1]
本篇中,我们将结合过往在融资租赁业务领域的执业经验,从程序及实体两个角度,分别梳理《中华人民共和国民法典》(以下简称“《民法典》”)生效前的存量项目中,出租人在租赁物被承租人擅自处分后可能面临的“困局”及“破局”进路。而在下篇中,我们将基于后《民法典》时代法律条文与配套制度的更迭,进一步对融资租赁行业实践的变化作出解读与研判。
一、 “困局”:租赁物被承租人擅自处分,出租人的物权保障岌岌可危
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.
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.