Did you know that dispositions of property of a solvent company made after the commencement of a winding-up will unlikely be disturbed unless it can be demonstrated that the disposition is not in the interests of the company?
As we pointed out in our Legal Update of 30 January 2014 ("New Companies Ordinance – Old Winding Up and Insolvency Regime"), the new Companies Ordinance for Hong Kong (Chapter 622) is scheduled to take effect from 3 March 2014 but it will not cover the winding-up and insolvency regime.
Did you know that in the recent matter of Chan Kam Cheung v. Sun Light Elastic Ltd & Another1 the petitioner's alternative remedy for winding-up was struck out by the court?
The existing provisions on the winding up of companies in Hong Kong will continue to operate after the new Companies Ordinance comes into effect, which is expected to be on 3 March 2014.
The new Companies Ordinance is an overhaul covering many aspects of the existing Companies Ordinance, including the following:
On 7 January 2014 the Financial Services and Treasury Bureau of the Hong Kong Government (FSTB), in conjunction with the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA), Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) and the Insurance Authority (IA), issued a first stage consultation regarding the introduction of a resolution regime for financial institutions in Hong Kong (the “Consultation”). The Consultation initiates a discussion as to the regulatory structure and principles that would be required to establish an effective resolution regime for financial institutions in Hong Kong.
On October 28, 2013, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) announced that it had reached a settlement with the former directors and officers of Northstar Aerospace whereby those former directors and officers agreed to pay $4.75 million for costs associated with the remediation of contaminated lands owned by the now-bankrupt company. The Environmental Review Tribunal approved the Minutes of Settlement at the hearing held on October 28.
Upon the filing of an appeal of a bankruptcy order, that order is stayed pursuant to section 195 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”). In Msi Spergel v. I.F. Propco Holdings (Ontario) 36 Ltd., 2013 ONCA 550, the Ontario Court of Appeal had to decide whether that stay suspends the limitation period applicable to a motion by a trustee to set aside a preferential payment by a bankrupt under s. 95 of the BIA.
In a decision rendered on August 15, 2013, the Ontario Court of Appeal in Re Nortel denied a motion for leave to appeal in a CCAA proceeding, reiterating the stringent test for leave to appeal in such circumstances. More importantly for our purposes, the court reiterated the necessity for a motion for leave to adduce fresh evidence where the moving party seeks to rely upon such evidence.
The test for granting leave to appeal in Companies Creditors’ Arrangement Act proceedings is well-settled:
In Kasten Energy Inc. v. Shamrock Oil & Gas Ltd., 2013 ABQB 63, the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench considered the application of Kasten Energy Inc. (“Kasten”) to appoint a receiver over all of the assets and undertakings of Shamrock Oil & Gas Ltd. (“Shamrock”). The decision in this case presents a useful and concise summary of the applicable test for the appointment of a receiver.