Introduction

簡介

香港法院過往一直承認公司在其註冊成立所在的司法管轄區展開的外地清盤程序。但最近在Provisional Liquidator of Global Brands Group Holding Ltd v Computershare Hong Kong Trustees Ltd [2022] HKCFI 1789一案中，夏利士法官提出一種新的方法，承認在公司的「主要利益中心」所在的司法管轄區進行的外地清盤程序。夏利士法官認為，就香港法院承認及協助外地清盤人而言，外地清盤程序在公司註冊成立地點進行這一點並不足夠，也非必要。

背景

利標品牌有限公司（「該公司」）是一間在百慕達註冊成立，並在香港聯合交易所上市的投資控股公司。由於新型肺炎疫情持續，該公司及其附屬公司的業務面臨嚴峻困難，因此該公司董事會認為展開清盤程序符合該公司的利益，並向百慕達法院申請委任臨時清盤人（「臨時清盤人」），授以有限度權力以協助該公司重組債務。然而，重組並不成功，百慕達法院於2021年11月5日對該公司發出清盤令。

A Hong Kong court has severely criticised the provisional liquidators (PLs) appointed by the court in the company’s place of incorporation in the Cayman Islands, for trying to interfere with the rights of creditors in Hong Kong and to bypass the statutory scheme of winding-up in Hong Kong. In GTI Holdings Limited [2022] HKCFI 2598, the Honourable Madam Justice Linda Chan said it was a matter of concern to see that solicitors and counsel engaged by the PLs in Hong Kong "did not bring home to the provisional liquidators their duties owed to the creditors and to this court".

The Hong Kong court has sanctioned a scheme of arrangement for a Hong Kong-listed, Bermuda-incorporated fertilizer manufacturer based in the mainland. In doing so, the Honorable Mr Justice Harris also warned holders of U.S. denominated debt that where they use offshore schemes of arrangement, they run the risk of individual creditors presenting winding-up petitions in Hong Kong. The view has however been queried in recent U.S. authority.

The Hong Kong court has confirmed that – going forward – the court is ready to recognize and assist a foreign insolvency process conducted in the company’s center of main interests (COMI) and that it will no longer be necessary for the foreign insolvency process to be carried out in a company’s place of incorporation. The judgment sets out a practical roadmap for the future of cross-border insolvency in Hong Kong, where listed companies that use complex holding company structures find themselves in difficulty.

Introduction

In the recent case of Re Ashit Sud (Debtor)[2022] 2 HKLRD 898, the Court explained when a creditor would be considered acting unreasonable in rejecting a debtor’s settlement proposal. At the end of the hearing, the Court made a winding-up order against the Company in question and a bankruptcy order against the director of the Company, Mr Ashit Sud, who had provided guarantees.

Background

簡介

最近在Re Ashit Sud (Debtor)[2022] 2 HKLRD 898一案中，法院說明了債權人在甚麼情況下拒絕債務人的和解建議會被視為不合理。案件審結時，法院對涉案公司（「該公司」）發出清盤令，以及對提供擔保的公司董事Ashit Sud先生（「該董事」）發出破產令。

背景

简介

最近在Re Ashit Sud (Debtor)[2022] 2 HKLRD 898一案中，法院说明了债权人在甚么情况下拒绝债务人的和解建议会被视为不合理。案件审结时，法院对涉案公司（「该公司」）发出清盘令，以及对提供担保的公司董事Ashit Sud先生（「该董事」）发出破产令。

背景

The Court of First Instance held in Re Up Energy Development Group Limited [2022] HKCFI 1329 that where the three core requirements for winding-up a foreign company under section 327(1) of the Companies (Winding up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap. 32) (CWUMPO) are satisfied, the mere fact that the foreign company has been ordered to be wound up by the court in its place of incorporation is not a ground for the Hong Kong court to decline the making of a winding up order.

A former listco

In Shandong Chenming Paper Holdings Limited v Arjowiggins HKK2 Limited [2022] HKCFA 11, the Court of Final Appeal has confirmed that the "leverage" created by the prospect of a winding-up – as opposed to the making of a winding-up order – provides a legitimate form of "benefit" for the purposes of satisfying the second of the three "core requirements" for winding up a foreign incorporated company in Hong Kong.