During the COVID-19 crisis, many companies are facing unexpected financial distress, and taking steps to stabilise their business and bolster their finances.

Many directors will not have experienced these issues before, and should be aware of how their duties are impacted when the company is in financial distress.

This guide has been prepared on the basis of Hong Kong law principles. Many of the principles will also be applicable to other common law jurisdictions.

How are companies responding to the current crisis?

Guest Author: Karlene A. Archer of Karlene A. Archer Law P.L.L.C.

Consumers that have pending Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases undoubtedly suffered from financial hardship prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. For many of those consumers, the pandemic may have exacerbated that hardship. The CARES Act’s mortgage forbearance provisions allow some breathing room for consumers that anticipate a temporary inability to pay their mortgage. These provisions also apply to consumers in bankruptcy and in that sphere present unique difficulties.

In Joint Provisional Liquidators of Moody Technology Holdings Ltd [2020] HKCFI 416, the Hong Kong Court of First Instance (the “Hong KongCourt”) granted a recognition order to foreign provisional liquidators who were appointed on a soft-touch basis, to explore and facilitate the restructuring of a company. The order was made despite soft-touch provisional liquidation being per se impermissible in Hong Kong.

Background

The principle in ex parte James, under which the Court will not permit its officers (such as a liquidator) to act in a way which, although lawful, does not accord with the standards of right-thinking people, has recently been clarified by the English Court of Appeal in Lehman Brothers Australia Limited (in liquidation) v Edward John Macnamara & others (the joint administrators of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in administration)) [2020] EWCA Civ 321

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.

The Fifth Circuit’s recent decision in Crocker v. Navient Solutions is a stark reminder to for-profit student lenders and servicers that bankruptcy caselaw continues to evolve relating to discharge. In Crocker, the Fifth Circuit joined the trend of cases holding that private student loans are dischargeable in bankruptcy.

The circuit courts continue to wrestle over the duties imposed by the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay on creditors concerning turnover of a debtor’s impounded vehicle. Is a creditor required to automatically turn over the vehicle as soon as the bankruptcy petition is filed, or can it retain possession while awaiting an order of the bankruptcy court adjudicating turnover in an adversary proceeding?

Federal law has long excepted student loans from discharge in bankruptcy in all but the rarest instances, recognizing the problems (and costs) associated with allowing borrowers to wipe out defaulted debts through a bankruptcy filing. However, as the issues of access to college and affordability become frequent topics in political discourse, new ideas for radical changes to the treatment of student loan debt in bankruptcy have been proposed. Lenders and servicers need to be up to speed on those proposals and ready to adjust their operations if any become law.

The Supreme Court reminded bankrupt debtors on Monday that mere rejection of a contract does not turn back the clock to avoid contractual obligations. This was the thrust of its holding in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, which held that a rejection of an executory contract—in this case, a trademark license—under Section 365(a) constitutes a breach of the contract, not a rescission.