In a precedent-setting decision delivered on 8 February 2018, the Hong Kong Court of First Instance has granted a recognition order in favour of foreign liquidators appointed in an insolvent liquidation commenced by a shareholders' resolution.

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?

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently certified to the New York Court of Appeals two questions concerning the ability of a judgment creditor to garnish accounts of judgment debtors at non-US subsidiaries of banks that have branches in New York or are otherwise subject to jurisdiction in New York.

Summary

DID YOU KNOW...that interim fees incurred by provisional liquidators (including agents’ fees), previously thought to have been payable from the funds of an insolvent estate without formal taxation, are now required to be taxed.

Did you know... that the court may, in special circumstances, exercise its discretion to appoint pre-existing receivers as a company’s provisional liquidators.

In the recent decision ofRe K Vision International Investment (Hong Kong) Limited, the Honourable Mr. Justice Barma confirmed that, where the circumstances require it, the court will exercise its discretion to appoint pre-existing receivers of a company’s assets as that company’s provisional liquidators provided that potential conflicts of interest are identified and appropriately addressed.

On April 19, 2012, the Lehman bankruptcy court handed down its decision on the long-pending motion to dismiss filed by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., in response to Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.’s $8.6 billion avoidance action against it. The action sought to recover the value of collateral taken by JP Morgan in its role as principal clearing bank to Lehman in the run-up to the Lehman insolvency.

As many will know, a failure to “...do all that is reasonable for the purpose of bringing the statutory demand to the debtor’s attention...” may result in an annulment of a bankruptcy order. But how is this requirement of Rule 46 of the Bankruptcy Rules met?