In Lawrence, Ozifin Tech Pty Ltd (in liq) v AGM Markets Pty Ltd (in liq)[2022] FCA 1478, liquidators of multiple companies were successful in obtaining the declarations and directions they sought regarding the distribution of statutory trust funds, and obtaining payment of their fees from trust assets.
In Nuoxi Capital Ltd v Peking University Founder Group Co Ltd [2021] HKCFI 3817, Mr Justice Harris held that keepwell disputes should be determined in Hong Kong in accordance with the contractual exclusive jurisdiction clause, notwithstanding the Court recognising the keepwell provider’s Mainland insolvency proceedings.
In Re HNA Group Co Limited[2021] HKCFI 2897, the Hong Kong Court recognised for the first time reorganisation proceedings commenced under the Mainland Enterprise Bankruptcy Law (“Mainland Reorganisation Proceedings”).
In Re Cosmos Machinery Enterprises Ltd [2021] HKCFI 2088, Mr Justice Harris corrected some privatisation scheme practice and issued the following guidance:
(1) Rule 2.10 of the Code on Takeovers and Mergers (“Rule 2.10”) did not prevent offeror concert parties from voting on privatisation schemes.
In Re Samson Paper Co Ltd [2021] HKCFI 2151, the Hong Kong Court issued for the first time a letter of request to the Shenzhen Bankruptcy Court requesting the latter to recognise and assist Hong Kong liquidators.
This week’s TGIF considers a recent case where the Supreme Court of Queensland rejected a director’s application to access an executory contract of sale entered into by receivers and managers on the basis it was not a ‘financial record’
Key Takeaways
This week’s TGIF looks at the decision of the Federal Court of Australia in Donoghue v Russells (A Firm)[2021] FCA 798 in which Mr Donoghue appealed a decision to make a sequestration order which was premised on him ‘carrying on business in Australia' for the purpose of section 43(1)(b)(iii) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (Act).
Key Takeaways
A trio of landmark decisions by Mr Justice Harris have altered and hugely improved the scheme of arrangement practice in Hong Kong. The new scheme practice points are in brief thus:
First, where an offshore incorporated company seeks to restructure its debts by means of a Hong Kong scheme of arrangement, it should not at the same time pursue a parallel offshore scheme just because it is incorporated offshore. Any such parallel scheme must be justified. Pursuing an unnecessary parallel scheme could entail the following consequences:
A trio of landmark decisions by Mr Justice Harris have altered and hugely improved the scheme of arrangement practice in Hong Kong. The new scheme practice points are in brief thus:
First, where an offshore incorporated company seeks to restructure its debts by means of a Hong Kong scheme of arrangement, it should not at the same time pursue a parallel offshore scheme just because it is incorporated offshore. Any such parallel scheme must be justified. Pursuing an unnecessary parallel scheme could entail the following consequences:
Puncturing a popular myth, Mr Justice Harris in Re FDG Electric Vehicles Limited [2020] HKCFI 2931 held that when the Hong Kong court recognises offshore provisional liquidation orders (“PL Order”), there would not be an automatic stay on proceedings in Hong Kong.
Further, any assistance granted to the offshore provisional liquidators must be restricted to assets in Hong Kong.
The decision is sound in principle and sits well with international insolvency standards.
The Myth