Bankruptcy law has always been an interesting area to practice and study in China. Having nominally a “socialist market economy” as per its Constitution, China allows its private sector to operate relatively freely within regularly re-defined boundaries but has a strong state-owned sector that comprises about half of the entire economy. Adding constant concerns about social stability in the country of 1.4 billion people, the rules for companies going into insolvency must be a careful balance between capitalist “freedom to fail” principles and governmental control over the economy.
In the Matter of Holt Fund SPC (Unreported, 26 January 2024) is the first occasion where an application has been made to appoint Restructuring Officers over portfolios of a segregated portfolio company. At first glance the judgment appears uncontroversial. However, it highlights a lacuna in the law which readers should be aware of.
Background
The Petitioner sought the appointment of Restructuring Officers (ROs) in respect of two segregated portfolios of the Holt Fund SPC.
在中国，破产法一直是一个有趣的实践和研究的领域。自从社会主义市场经济被写入我国宪法，我国就允许私营企业在定期不断重新界定的范围内相对自由地经营，同时约占整个经济一半的国有企业也展现出其雄厚的实力。在这个拥有14亿人口的国家，社会稳定问题一直备受关注，因此企业破产制度必须在资本主义“允许失败的自由”原则和政府对经济的管控之间保持谨慎的平衡。
中国的破产法从业人员一直热切期待新的并且能够对公司何时以及如何进行破产清算与重整产生影响的法律法规出台。中华人民共和国第十四届全国人民代表大会常务委员会第七次会议于2023年12月29日审议并通过了新修订的《中华人民共和国公司法》（简称“新公司法”），将自2024年7月1日起正式实施。本文将从破产实务的角度对新公司法进行解读。
Bankruptcy law has always been an interesting area to practice and study in China. Having nominally a “socialist market economy” as per its Constitution, China allows its private sector to operate relatively freely within regularly re-defined boundaries but has a strong state-owned sector that comprises about half of the entire economy. Adding constant concerns about social stability in the country of 1.4 billion people, the rules for companies going into insolvency must be a careful balance between capitalist “freedom to fail” principles and governmental control over the economy.
Looking back at 2023, one of the more memorable judicial decisions emanating from Jersey was the decision of the Court of Appeal in HWA 555 Owners, LLC v Redox PLC S.A. and Thieltgen [2023] JCA 085. In this update we explore how this decision might impact upon the creditors’ winding-up regime provided for in the Companies (Jersey) Law 1991.
HWA 555 Owners, LLC v Redox PLC S.A. and Thieltgen
Introduction
During summer 2023 the Swedish Government Official Report (SOU 2023:34) (the “Report”) was published proposing, inter alia, the removal of the requirements of a limited liability company to prepare a control balance sheet (Sw. Kontrollbalansräkning) and eventually enter into liquidation upon shortage of own capital. Instead, the suggestion was that the emphasis should be shifted more towards liquidity and solvency. The Report has now been through a referral process and by 15 December 2023 various referral bodies had submitted their responses to the Report.
In this article we explore the key trends which are currently shaping the landscape of private wealth disputes, including mental capacity as a central theme in private wealth disputes, trust insolvency and disputes relating to trustee investments.
Mental capacity
Mental capacity is increasingly a central theme on the landscape of private wealth disputes. Why? The starting point is that there is, more so than at any point previously, a wider recognition of the seismic consequences of establishing mental incapacity on the part of the relevant decision maker.
The Grand Court of the Cayman Islands has provided further guidance on the new restructuring officer (RO) regime under section 91B of the Companies Act (2023 Revision) (the Act), which came into force on 31 August 2022.
In Re Aubit International (Unreported, 4 October 2023), the Grand Court dismissed a petition to appoint restructuring officers and found that it did not have jurisdiction to grant the relief requested on the basis that there was no credible evidence of a rational restructuring proposal with reasonable prospects of success.
The Privy Council has considered the question of whether an agreement to settle disputes arising out of a shareholders' agreement by arbitration prevents a party to the agreement pursuing a petition to wind up the company on just and equitable grounds.
Background
The recent ex-tempore judgment of Kawaley J in Atom Holdings1 in the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands serves as a timely reminder to practitioners and industry participants alike that obtaining an adjournment of a winding-up petition2 requires cogent evidence demonstrating good reason(s) for delaying what is otherwise the collective right of creditors to seek relief via court intervention.