R (on the application of Palmer) (Appellant) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates’ Court and another (Respondents) [2023] UKSC 38

On appeal from: [2021] EWHC 3013

Creditors seeking to enforce an undisputed debt against a solvent foreign non-Hong Kong company in the courts of Hong Kong will welcome the recent judgment of the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) in Shandong Chenming Paper Holdings Limited v Arjowiggins HKK 2 Limited [2022] HKCFA 11, as the CFA helpfully backs a broader and more commercially holistic interpretation of a key tenet relating to how Hong Kong courts approach certain threshold assessments involving winding up petitions brought by creditors in Hong Kong against foreign incorporated companies.

Now that HMRC has become a preferential creditor for certain debts, other creditors – such as suppliers – could lose out.

Under the Finance Act 2020, from 1 December 2020, HMRC became a preferential creditor in insolvency proceedings. This may have significant impact on what’s left for other creditors.

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act (CIGA) came into force on 26 June 2020, introducing significant reforms intended to provide breathing space for companies during the coronavirus pandemic.

These measures may be a welcome relief to some struggling companies. However, they could prove problematic for suppliers, who will need to tread especially carefully when dealing with distressed or insolvent companies.

What has CIGA changed?

The economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic will leave in its wake a significant increase in commercial chapter 11 filings. Many of these cases will feature extensive litigation involving breach of contract claims, business interruption insurance disputes, and common law causes of action based on novel interpretations of long-standing legal doctrines such as force majeure.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali recently ruled in the Chapter 11 case of Pacific Gas & Electric (“PG&E”) that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) has no jurisdiction to interfere with the ability of a bankrupt power utility company to reject power purchase agreements (“PPAs”).

The Supreme Court this week resolved a long-standing open issue regarding the treatment of trademark license rights in bankruptcy proceedings. The Court ruled in favor of Mission Products, a licensee under a trademark license agreement that had been rejected in the chapter 11 case of Tempnology, the debtor-licensor, determining that the rejection constituted a breach of the agreement but did not rescind it.

Few issues in bankruptcy create as much contention as disputes regarding the right of setoff. This was recently highlighted by a decision in the chapter 11 case of Orexigen Therapeutics in the District of Delaware.

The judicial power of the United States is vested in courts created under Article III of the Constitution. However, Congress created the current bankruptcy court system over 40 years ago pursuant to Article I of the Constitution rather than under Article III.

In the recent case Re CW Advanced Technologies Limited, the Hong Kong court took the opportunity, albeit only obiter dicta, to raise and briefly comment on certain unresolved questions surrounding three issues of interest to insolvency practitioners: