In a long-awaited development of cross-border insolvency cooperation between Hong Kong and Mainland China, the Hong Kong Court has granted recognition and assistance to Mainland liquidators for the first time in Joint and Several Liquidators of CEFC Shanghai International Group Ltd [2020] HKCFI 167.

Background

The Court of First Instance has recently helpfully summarised the legal position on schemes of arrangement under both Hong Kong law and English law. Notably, it has called for further development in cross-border coordination in order to avoid the trouble of parallel insolvency proceedings and it has raised a red flag in relation to detailed disclosure of restructuring costs: Da Yu Financial Holdings Limited [2019] HKCFI 2531.

In Swiss Cosmeceutics (Asia) Ltd [2019] HKCFI 336, Mr Justice Harris of the Hong Kong Court of First Instance declined to wind up a company despite it failing to establish a bona fide defence on substantial grounds. Mr Justice Harris commented on the difficulties presented by sporadic record keeping, and reiterated the principle that the burden of proof lies with the company to demonstrate a bona fide defence on substantial grounds, despite the existence of anomalies in the petitioner’s claim.

Facts

In a highly international cross-border restructuring, the High Court of Hong Kong has refused to assist the New York-based Chapter 11 trustee of a Singaporean subsidiary of the Cayman-incorporated Peruvian business China Fishery Group (“CFG”).

In appointing restructuring provisional liquidators ("RPLs") to the Cayman Islands incorporated company, CW Group Holdings Limited ("CW"), in the face of opposition from a creditor seeking a remedy that may have led to CW's liquidation, the Cayman Islands court has reinforced its reputation in (i) putting company rescue first and (ii) seeking to ensure that returns to creditors are maximised. A significant step has also been taken in applying a more commercial and pragmatic reality to the question of officeholder independence.

On 20 June 2018, the Indian Government released a suggested draft chapter on cross-border insolvency to be included into the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code). This addresses a missing link in the ambitious reforms of the Indian insolvency framework and is to be welcomed.

It is timely, with further reform of the new Indian Bankruptcy Code (IBC) in prospect, to outline our thoughts on some of the current issues on which various market participants have requested an understanding of the approach and learnings of overseas practitioners.

In a decision that will reassure investors in Cayman Islands investment funds and other vehicles, the Grand Court has shown its willingness to facilitate the investigation of legitimate concerns raised during a voluntary liquidation.1

The decision is the first written ruling on the Court's power to defer the dissolution of a Cayman Islands company in voluntary liquidation under section 151(3) of the Companies Law and also considers the Court's power to bring a voluntary liquidation under the Court's supervision in the context of an investigation into possible wrongdoing.

Introduction

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) has just been passed by both Houses of the Indian Parliament. The key objectives of the Indian government in driving this legislation forward were to improve India‘s poor ranking on the ease of doing business index created by the World Bank Group and to stimulate the growth of the Indian capital markets, and the stated intention of the Code is to replace the relevant insolvency, restructuring and winding up provisions which are spread over a number of Indian statutes.

Our role

The Grand Court of the Cayman Islands has held that depositor protection provisions in Cayman Islands law only apply in respect of depositors with deposits of CI$20,000 (US$24,400) or less.¹  Depositors with more than CI$20,000 on deposit do not benefit from such provisions at all, even for their first CI$20,000.  This means that, for persuasive policy reasons, the position in the Cayman Islands differs from the position in the EU under the deposit guarantee scheme.