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 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.

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.

In the case of Re Guangdong Overseas Construction Corporation [2023] HKCFI 1340, the Honourable Madam Justice Linda Chan recognized and provided assistance to a mainland China appointed administrator over a mainland China company in liquidation despite the administrator's application being outside the scope of the insolvency cooperation mechanism between Hong Kong and mainland China courts. The Hong Kong court affirmed that its jurisdiction to recognize and assist office-holders appointed by a court of another jurisdiction derives from common law.

A Hong Kong court has reminded debtors of the need to present a credible and realistic restructuring proposal when facing creditors threatening winding up actions. In Re Jiayuan International Group Limited (佳源國際控股有限公司) [2023] HKCFI 1254, the Honourable Madam Justice Linda Chan warned that it is not enough for a debtor company to merely point to commercial discussions with some of the creditors when seeking an adjournment.

The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal (CFA) has confirmed a Court of Appeal finding that the court should respect the effect of an exclusive jurisdiction clause in bankruptcy proceedings, just as it does in ordinary civil actions.

山东胜通集团股份有限公司（以下简称“胜通集团”）债券信息披露违法案是证监会2021年证监稽查20起典型违法案例之一，相关中介机构均被行政处罚，备受资本市场关注。日前，青岛市中级人民法院（下称“青岛中院”）对“胜通债”虚假陈述诉讼案作出一审判决。

本案系北京金融法院“大连机床”判例后债券虚假陈述诉讼领域的又一经典判例，一审判决诸多亮点值得点赞：（1）新《证券法》实施后全国法院首例认定债券虚假陈述造成的债券投资损失应为投资差额损失而非债券票面本息；（2）全国法院首例在债券虚假陈述案件中剔除系统风险和非系统风险所致债券投资损失；（3）充分考察债券价格、交易量变化，突破性地认定发行人“澄清公告”发布日为揭露日；（4）创新性地认定案涉债券市场并非有效市场，应以破产清偿金额来确定债券基准价。

该案判决对债券虚假陈述投资损失的认定，标志着我国债券虚假陈述损失的司法认定思路已开始理性回归“损害填平”的侵权责任本质。此外，该案判决对债券虚假陈述揭露日和基准价方面的认定，进一步丰富了人民法院审理债券虚假陈述专业性问题的实践，积累了宝贵经验，具有相当的前沿性和示范性。