In a long-running dispute arising out of a failure to supply gas, the English Commercial Court recently ordered that a prime London commercial property be transferred to the award creditor in part-satisfaction of a USD 2.6 billion arbitration award. In this article, we explore the case of Crescent Gas Corporation Ltd v National Iranian Oil Company & Anor [2024] EWHC 835 (Comm) and look at how the Insolvency Act was used to support enforcement of the award.

Over the decade since the implementation of the costs reforms proposed in Lord Jackson's Review of Civil Litigation Costs, lawyers and litigants have become accustomed to the courts actively managing the costs of disputes with a value up to £10 million. But the court also retains a discretion to apply the costs management regime in cases even above this level.

The Court of Appeal recently considered when precisely a company had given a preference within the meaning of the Insolvency Act 1986 – a question of timing which may impact on whether an insolvency practitioner can later unwind the preferential treatment for the benefit of creditors as a whole.

Here we look at what a preference is, and when it is deemed to be given.

Preferences

In a recent decision in the high value bankruptcy of Pramod Mittal (Mr Mittal), the Chancery division considered the rules on service of insolvency applications. The decision underlines the importance of adhering to service rules and giving as much notice as possible of insolvency applications.

“…it is fallacious and unrealistic for the Company to assume that the value of the Haitian Shares remained the same from February to August 2019. Between February and August 2019, Haitian Energy had published no less than nine announcements suggest that the financial condition of Haitian Energy was in a state of flux, and that the value of the Haitian Shares was susceptible to fluctuation.”

– William Wong SC (Deputy High Court Judge in Re Victor River Ltd)

INTRODUCTION

引言

在Re China Huiyuan Group Ltd [2020] HKCFI 2940一案中，原訟法庭拒絕對一家在香港上市的開曼公司進行清盤，因為原訟法庭認為，呈請人未能證明在作出清盤令後，債權人確實有可能獲得實際利益。

案情

SDFIII Holdings Limited（以下簡稱「呈請人」）以資不抵債為由，發出對China Huiyuan Juice Group Limited（以下簡稱「該公司」）進行清盤的呈請。各方對該債務沒有爭議。

該公司在開曼群島註冊成立，並在香港聯交所主板上市。該公司的資產包括在英屬處女群島註冊成立的附屬公司的所有權，該等附屬公司在中國內地擁有附屬公司，而該等附屬公司又擁有該公司的相關資產，並開展生產及其他業務。

對該公司無爭議的是，該公司已資不抵債。該公司要求押後該呈請，以推進該公司的債務重組。由於股份已暫停買賣，而該公司亦面臨潛在的退市問題，該公司認為重組是令集團業務重回正軌的唯一方法，長遠而言，對該公司的債權人是有利的。

因此，法院將裁定是否立即發出清盤令或批准延期。

爭議點

爭議點如下：-

Introduction

In Re China Huiyuan Group Ltd [2020] HKCFI 2940, the Court of First Instance declined to wind up a Hong Kong-listed Cayman company as the Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that there was a real possibility of a tangible benefit to creditors upon the making of a winding up order.

Facts

SDF III Holdings Limited (the “Petitioner”) issued a petition to wind-up China Huiyuan Juice Group Limited (the “Company”) on the grounds of insolvency. The debt is not disputed.

Whilst receiving a judgment in your favour may feel like the culmination of a potentially lengthy legal process, it may be just the first step (though an important one) on the path to financial recovery. In our latest insight, we look at how and when you can enforce a judgment to realise payment of any damages or costs which have been awarded.

What is enforcement?