O Conselho Nacional de Justiça (“CNJ”) aprovou, na 307ª Sessão Ordinária, realizada de forma virtual no dia 31 de março de 2020, orientações para os juízos competentes para processamento de recuperações judiciais, diante do estado de calamidade pública e severo impacto econômico gerados pelo COVID-19.

As orientações foram aprovadas pelo CNJ por meio do Ato Normativo nº 0002561-26.2020.2.00.0000, sob relatoria do Conselheiro Relator Henrique Ávila.

A pandemia acarretada pelo Covid-19 impactou severamente a atividade econômica, diante da necessidade de adoção de medidas cada vez mais restritivas com o objetivo de diminuir a curva de propagação do coronavírus.

O impacto econômico está sendo sentido por diversos setores da economia, sendo que a mudança abrupta no cenário financeiro surpreendeu o mercado como um todo e tem tornado cada vez mais difícil o cumprimento de obrigações pelas partes contratantes.

Summary

Generally with a winding-up petition, if the petitioner is successful in obtaining a winding-up order, the petitioner will have its costs of the  proceedings. If, on the other hand, the petition is dismissed, then the petitioner has been  unsuccessful and it should pay the costs of the proceedings. We explore the Companies Court’s  treatment of costs in three recent decisions below.

From what Assets should a Petitioner have its Costs?

Under Hong Kong law, the courts’ jurisdiction is ordinarily territorial in nature. A plaintiff or applicant has to obtain permission (“leave”) of the court before it can validly serve a writ or other document initiating a legal action on a defendant or respondent located outside Hong Kong. For actions begun by writ, the procedures and criteria for applications for leave in this respect are set out under Order 11 of the Rules of the High Court (“RHC”).

Did you know that a liquidator of a foreign company may seek the assistance of the Hong Kong Court to obtain orders for the production of information which orders are, in substance, of the type made in Hong Kong windings-up under section 221(3) of the Companies (Winding-up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance?

In the bankruptcy proceedings in respect of Mr Gabriel Ricardo Dias-Azedo (the "Bankrupt"), the Court of First Instance recently exercised its discretion under sections 37(2) and 97 of the Bankruptcy Ordinance (Cap. 6) (BO) in favour of two creditors and granted them a priority claim against the Bankrupt's estate for their costs in preserving his assets incurred before receiving notice of the bankruptcy petition.

Background

In the recent case of Lau Siu Hung v. Krzystof Marszalek (HCCW 484/2009, 17 June 2013) the Court of First Instance held that an annulment of bankruptcy does not debar a creditor, who has not proved his provable debt, from asserting his claim after the annulment.

Procedural Background

In The Joint and Several Liquidators of QQ Club Limited (in liquidation) v. Golden Year Limited (HCCW 245/2011, 9 April 2013) (QQ Club), the Court of First Instance held that a liquidator's costs in pursuing an avoidance claim are "fees and expenses properly incurred in preserving, realizing or getting in the assets", and are payable out of the company's assets in priority to all other payments prescribed in rule 179 of the Companies (Winding-up) Rules. In reaching this conclusion, the court distinguished the English Court of Appeal's decision in Lewis v.

Did you know that the court's guiding principle on assessing remuneration for liquidators in respect of their administration of trust assets held by the company is similar to the principle applicable to liquidation work, that is, on a "value for money" basis rather than as an indemnity against cost?