The Hong Kong Court has power pursuant to section 327 of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap. 32) to wind up a foreign-incorporated company in Hong Kong. Before the Court can exercise its statutory jurisdiction, the following three well known “core requirements”, cited by the Court of Final Appeal in Kam Leung Siu Kwan v Kam Kwan Lai (2015) 18 HKCFAR 501, must be satisfied:

Since the signing of a record of meeting concerning mutual recognition of and assistance to insolvency proceedings between the courts of Mainland China and Hong Kong in May 2021, there have been a number applications for letters of request to be issued by the Hong Kong Court to the Bankruptcy Court of the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court.

The recent decision of Mr Justice Harris in Nuoxi Capital Ltd v Peking University Founder Group Co Ltd [2021] HKCFI 3817 shows the tension between the Hong Kong’s courts willingness to recognise foreign insolvency proceedings and the contractual rights of creditors who sought to enforce exclusive jurisdiction clauses in favour of Hong Kong.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently ruled in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtors’ attempt to shield contributions to a 401(k) retirement account from “projected disposable income,” therefore making such amounts inaccessible to the debtors’ creditors.^[1] For the reasons explained below, the Sixth Circuit rejected the debtors’ arguments.

Case Background

A statute must be interpreted and enforced as written, regardless, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, “of whether a court likes the results of that application in a particular case.” That legal maxim guided the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning in a recent decision^[1] in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtor’s repeated filings and requests for dismissal of his bankruptcy cases in order to avoid foreclosure of his home.

In recent years, there has been an increasing trend for different creditors to issue multiple petitions against the same debtor company. This may be due to the large number of listed companies in Hong Kong encountering financial difficulties during this period of economic downturn, or simply a lack of knowledge of the law in this area.

In May 2021, we published an article, Milestone in Hong Kong-Mainland China cross border insolvency: Mutual recognition of and assistance to Insolvency Proceedings between Hong Kong and Mainland China, which highlighted the key features of the cooperation mechanism in relation to Hong Kong-Mainland China cross border insolvency set out in the Record of Meeting of the Supreme Peopl

On 14 May 2021, Hong Kong’s Secretary for Justice and the Vice-President of the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) signed a record of meeting concerning mutual recognition of and assistance to insolvency proceedings between the courts of Mainland China and Hong Kong (Record of Meeting), which signifies the consensus on the mutual recognition of and assistance to insolvency proceedings between the two jurisdictions in accordance with the principle of reciprocity and with a view to promoting closer cross-border judicial cooperation on insolvency matters.

The recent Court of First Instance decision in Li Yiqing v Lamtex Holdings Limited [2021] HKCFI 622 (11 March 2021) is a landmark decision in cross-border insolvency law in Hong Kong, in which the Court held that when it is considering the recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings, regard should not simply be had to the place of incorporation of the relevant company, but that in a departure from previous practice, the location of the company’s centre of main interest (COMI) is also a factor.

On January 14, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton (Case No. 19-357, Jan. 14, 2021), a case which examined whether merely retaining estate property after a bankruptcy filing violates the automatic stay provided for by §362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court overruled the bankruptcy court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in deciding that mere retention of property does not violate the automatic stay.

Case Background