It’s not the first occasion that a major serviced office provider has landed in a corporate restructuring but it may be the most high-profile. The current evolving situation follows on from such previous fireworks as the failed IPO, a corporate reorganisation that swapped a US headco “inc.“ for an “LLC” (prompting litigation at the end of the last decade), and continuing market uncertainty as to the robustness of the brand.

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.

In what is likely to be the most significant change to the UK restructuring and insolvency market since the Enterprise Act 2002, the Court has yesterday¹ paved the way for restructuring plans under Part 26A to the Companies Act 2006 ("RPs") to be used to compromise the rights of landlords, financial creditors and other unsecured creditors provided the company shows that those creditors are "out of the money". There may even be no need to ask those compromised creditors to vote on the RP.

The recent decision in Re The Liquidator of Shenzhen Everich Supply Chain Co, Ltd (in liquidation in the People’s Republic of China) [2020] HKCFI 965 reaffirms the willingness of the Hong Kong Companies Court (the “Companies Court”) to recognise the winding-up of a company in Mainland China and thereby grant recognition and assistance to liquidators appointed in the Mainland.

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.

A case study of what to look out for when a tenant or its guarantor is looking like it is heading for financial difficulties

As a prudent and prepared landlord, it's always sensible to assess what potential remedies you might have should a tenant (or its guarantor) become insolvent or enter into some form of insolvency procedure. In this bulletin, we look at a short hypothetical case study and identify some of the key issues that landlords will need to assess in such circumstances.

1. The case study scenario

On Friday 18 January 2019, Hong Kong and the Mainland reached a milestone by signing the Arrangement on Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters between the Courts of the Mainland and of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (“Arrangement“). When taken together with other similar arrangements that are in train, the Mainland Supreme People’s Court envisages that approximately 90% of judgments of a civil and commercial nature will soon be reciprocally recognised and enforced between Hong Kong and the Mainland.

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 the first instance decision of Fo Shan Shi Shun De Qu Consonancy Investment Co Ltd v Yat Kit Jong [2017] HKEC 557, the Court took a dim view of a party's conduct in respect of expert directions. It held that the party's failure to properly define the scope of the issues to be covered by the expert was a violation of procedural rules and prejudicial to the opposing party, and as such ordered that the party be penalised on costs.

Facts