In a recent case, the Victorian Supreme Court said that an accountant ‘would know well that a statutory demand involves strict time frames for response and potentially very significant consequences for a company’. The accountant failed to take appropriate steps to inform the company of the statutory demand.

The statutory demand process

If a company does not comply with a statutory demand within 21 days of service, it is deemed to be insolvent and the creditor may proceed to wind up the company.

A recent court decision considers the legal principles and sufficiency of evidence when a court-appointed receiver seeks approval of their remuneration.

A court-appointed receiver needs court approval for the payment of their remuneration. The receiver has the onus of establishing the reasonableness of the work performed and of the remuneration sought.

In Nuoxi Capital Ltd v Peking University Founder Group Co Ltd [2021] HKCFI 3817, Mr Justice Harris held that keepwell disputes should be determined in Hong Kong in accordance with the contractual exclusive jurisdiction clause, notwithstanding the Court recognising the keepwell provider’s Mainland insolvency proceedings.

In Re HNA Group Co Limited[2021] HKCFI 2897, the Hong Kong Court recognised for the first time reorganisation proceedings commenced under the Mainland Enterprise Bankruptcy Law (“Mainland Reorganisation Proceedings”).

In Re Cosmos Machinery Enterprises Ltd [2021] HKCFI 2088, Mr Justice Harris corrected some privatisation scheme practice and issued the following guidance:

(1) Rule 2.10 of the Code on Takeovers and Mergers (“Rule 2.10”) did not prevent offeror concert parties from voting on privatisation schemes.

In Re Samson Paper Co Ltd [2021] HKCFI 2151, the Hong Kong Court issued for the first time a letter of request to the Shenzhen Bankruptcy Court requesting the latter to recognise and assist Hong Kong liquidators.

A Supreme Court in Australia has dismissed an application by a UK company’s moratorium restructuring practitioners for recognition of a UK moratorium and ordered that the company be wound up under Australian law.

The decision provides insights into the interaction between cross-border insolvencies and the winding up in Australia of foreign companies under Australian law.

Introduction

In the matter of Hydrodec Group Plc [2021] NSWSC 755, delivered 24 June 2021, the New South Wales Supreme Court:

A trio of landmark decisions by Mr Justice Harris have altered and hugely improved the scheme of arrangement practice in Hong Kong. The new scheme practice points are in brief thus:

First, where an offshore incorporated company seeks to restructure its debts by means of a Hong Kong scheme of arrangement, it should not at the same time pursue a parallel offshore scheme just because it is incorporated offshore. Any such parallel scheme must be justified. Pursuing an unnecessary parallel scheme could entail the following consequences:

A trio of landmark decisions by Mr Justice Harris have altered and hugely improved the scheme of arrangement practice in Hong Kong. The new scheme practice points are in brief thus:

First, where an offshore incorporated company seeks to restructure its debts by means of a Hong Kong scheme of arrangement, it should not at the same time pursue a parallel offshore scheme just because it is incorporated offshore. Any such parallel scheme must be justified. Pursuing an unnecessary parallel scheme could entail the following consequences:

Puncturing a popular myth, Mr Justice Harris in Re FDG Electric Vehicles Limited [2020] HKCFI 2931 held that when the Hong Kong court recognises offshore provisional liquidation orders (“PL Order”), there would not be an automatic stay on proceedings in Hong Kong.

Further, any assistance granted to the offshore provisional liquidators must be restricted to assets in Hong Kong.

The decision is sound in principle and sits well with international insolvency standards.

The Myth