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 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

On 8 March 2021, the iconic UA Cinemas closed down, and Mr Justice Harris appointed provisional liquidators instantly to protect creditors' interests once again demonstrating the best traditions of the Hong Kong Companies Court in meeting acute business challenges.

In the landmark case of Re China Huiyuan Juice Group Limited [2020] HKCFI 2940, Mr Justice Harris recalibrated the Hong Kong winding-up jurisdiction and its application to an offshore incorporated, Hong Kong-listed entity.

In particular, the decision explains why the Hong Kong court may be unable to wind-up an offshore incorporated, Hong Kong-listed company where all of the company’s operating assets are in the Mainland.

The Material Facts

Hot on the heels of a trio of decisions concerning offshore provisional liquidation, which opened a new and commendable era for Hong Kong’s cross-border insolvency regime (see https://dvc.hk/en/news/cases-detail/heralding-a-new-and-healthy-era-of-cross-border-insolvency-recognition-in-hong-kong-re-fdg-electric-vehicles-ltd-re-