In The Joint and Several Provisional Liquidators of China Oil Gangran Energy Group Holdings Limited [2020] HKCFI 825, the Hong Kong Court continued a trend of recognising foreign soft-touch provisional liquidators.

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?

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 oil and gas industry in the United States is highly dependent upon an intricate set of agreements that allow oil and gas to be gathered from privately owned land. Historically, the dedication language in oil and gas gathering agreements — through which the rights to the oil or gas in specified land are dedicated — was viewed as being a covenant that ran with the land. That view was put to the test during the wave of oil and gas exploration company bankruptcies that began in 2014.

On February 25, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision holding that a trustee is not barred by either the presumption against extraterritoriality or by international comity principles from recovering property from a foreign subsequent transferee that received the property from a foreign initial transferee.

On January 17, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a decision holding that “impairment” under a plan of reorganization does not arise even if a creditor is paid less than it would be entitled to under its contract, so long as the reduced recovery is due to the plan’s incorporation of the Bankruptcy Code’s disallowance provisions.

Intercreditor agreements between secured creditors are intended to limit the potential for litigation and result in predictable commercial outcomes with respect to recoveries from collateral in enforcement actions and bankruptcies. Despite the extensive drafting efforts of sophisticated counsel to eliminate ambiguities in these agreements, the interpretation of intercreditor agreements has been the subject of substantial bankruptcy litigation.

On November 8, 2018, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”) issued a decision dismissing an involuntary chapter 11 case filed against Taberna Preferred Funding IV, Ltd. (“Taberna”), a CDO, by holders of non-recourse notes (the “Petitioning Creditors”).

Parties involved in cross-border bankruptcy/restructuring situations may be wary of the risk that repeated litigation in different courts with jurisdiction over the same debtor will result in conflicting judgments. The principle of “universalism” is the theory whereby the decisions of one primary jurisdiction addressing a debtor’s bankruptcy/restructuring issues are given universal effect by courts in other jurisdictions.