The Hong Kong government is proposing much-anticipated legislation for the introduction of a corporate rescue procedure and insolvent trading regime. Hong Kong has, for years, struggled to introduce a statutory corporate rescue procedure (CRP), having previously made unsuccessful attempts in 2000-2001, 2008-2009, and 2014. Now – with COVID-19 severely impacting the economy – the government has finally tabled the Companies (Corporate Rescue) Bill.

In a pair of recent contrasting judgments, Re Agritrade Resources Ltd [2020] HKCFI 1967 and Re Rare Earth Magnesium Technology Group Holdings Ltd [2020] HKCFI 2260, the Hong Kong Court has once again confirmed its pragmatic approach towards applications by foreign liquidators and provisional liquidators for recognition and assistance in Hong Kong. The judgments emphasize the importance of adhering to the standard forms of order adopted by the Hong Kong courts in respect of such applications, and the need for any departure from the standard form to be fully justified.

In a recent judgment, the Hong Kong Court reiterated the principles outlined in Kam Leung Sui Kwan v. Kam Kwan Lai [2015] 18 HKCFAR 501 (Yung Kee), the case concerning the famous roastgoose restaurant in the heart of Hong Kong's Central district, when determining whether to exercise its discretion to wind up a foreign-incorporated company. In this case, the court also refused to grant a stay of the petition in favor of arbitration.

Florida escape

The Singapore High Court has recently granted recognition to Hong Kong liquidation proceedings and liquidators for the first time under Singapore's enactment of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Model Law on Cross Border Insolvency (the model law).

Another Hong Kong court decision has questioned whether the judgment in the leading case of Lasmos Limited v. Southwest Pacific Bauxite (HK) Limited [2018] HKCFI 426, may have gone too far when it suggested that an arbitration clause in an agreement should generally take precedence over a creditor's right to present a winding-up petition.

Just in time for the Chinese New Year, a Hong Kong court has taken a major step forward in the developing law on cross-border insolvency by recognizing a mainland Chinese liquidation for the first time. In the Joint and Several Liquidators of CEFC Shanghai International Group Ltd [2020] HKCFI 167, Mr. Justice Harris granted recognition and assistance to mainland administrators in Hong Kong so they could perform their functions and protect assets held in Hong Kong from enforcement.

Just in time for Chinese New Year, a Hong Kong court has taken a major step forward in the developing law on cross-border insolvency by recognising a mainland Chinese liquidation for the first time. InJoint and Several Liquidators of CEFC Shanghai International Group Ltd [2020] HKCFI 167, Mr Justice Harris granted recognition and assistance to mainland administrators in Hong Kong so they could perform their functions and protect assets held in Hong Kong from enforcement.

The Hong Kong Court of Appeal has suggested that a previous Court decision may have overstepped the mark by suggesting that an arbitration clause in a client agreement should generally take precedence over a creditor's right to present a winding-up petition.

Both the First Energy Solutions and PG&E bankruptcies have seen proceedings regarding power purchase and similar agreements (PPAs) that raise this question.

Background

Contracts often contain provisions that enable a party to terminate or modify the contract based on the other party's bankruptcy filing, insolvency or deteriorating financial condition. In general, the Bankruptcy Code renders these types of provisions (sometimes referred to as "ipso facto" clauses) ineffective. Specifically, under section 365(e)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code (emphasis added):

On February 17, 2016, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) (collectively, the “agencies”) jointly proposed a rule to supplement the statutory provisions of Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act (the “Orderly Liquidation Authority” or “OLA”) that govern the orderly liquidation of a “covered broker or dealer”—i.e., an SEC-registered broker or dealer that is a member of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (“SIPC”) and for which a systemic risk determination to trigger the application of the OLA has been made.