When a company is in financial distress, directors face difficult choices. Should they trade on to try to “trade out” of the company’s financial difficulties or should they file for insolvency? If they act too soon, will creditors complain that they should have done more to save the business? A recent English High Court case raises the prospect of directors potentially being held to account for decisions that “merely postpone the inevitable.”

A Hong Kong court has refused to sanction a scheme of arrangement, saying that practitioners should explain the key terms and effect of any proposed restructuring in a way which can be easily understood by the creditors and the court.

In Re Sino Oiland Gas Holdings Ltd [2024] HKCFI 1135, the Honourable Madam Justice Linda Chan refused to sanction a scheme of arrangement, saying that creditors had been given insufficient information about the restructuring and the scheme that would enable them to make an informed decision at the scheme meeting.

The Hong Kong Court of Appeal has finally laid to rest the vexed issue of whether an arbitration agreement or a winding-up petition should take precedence in an insolvency situation. In two parallel decisions, the Court of Appeal ruled that an arbitration agreement should be treated in the same way as an exclusive jurisdiction clause and that the principle should be given a wide interpretation.

The Hong Kong High Court has given a rare order for modifications to a scheme of arrangement after it had been implemented incorrectly by the scheme administrators. Drawing on instances in which the English courts have sanctioned modifications after approval by scheme creditors, the court held that the same principles apply here.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the landmark RPS Infrastructure Ltd vs. Mukul Sharma[1]judgement, once again delved into the issue of claims being made beyond the statutorily prescribed timelines in a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”).

Introduction

The modification or withdrawal of Resolution Plans under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code / IBC”) had always been a contentious subject, with the National Company Law Tribunal (“Adjudicating Authority / NCLT”) and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) taking conflicting views in the past.

The Hong Kong court has granted an order forcing an uncooperative former director of a Hong Kong listed company to ratify the appointment of a Hong Kong liquidator as the sole director of the companies' four BVI subsidiaries. The court rejected the idea that the liquidators should be made to apply for fresh winding up orders in the BVI and stressed that courts should be ready to offer each other mutual assistance.

INTRODUCTION:

In a recent judgement of Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Raman Ispat Private Ltd. and Ors. (being Civil Appeal No.7976 of 2019), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC/Code”) overrides the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, despite the latter containing two specific provisions being Section 173 and 174 which have overriding effect over all other laws.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

Three recent Hong Kong first instance court decisions have left undecided the question of whether a winding-up petition will trump an agreement to arbitrate when it comes to a winding-up and particularly in the context of cross-claims. A Court of Final Appeal decision this spring had seemed to provide pointers that the parties' agreement would be upheld but the issue – particularly when it comes to unmeritorious and late arbitration applications – is dividing the courts.

The U.K. Financial Services and Markets Act 2023