Generally speaking, the most appropriate jurisdiction in which to wind up a company is the jurisdiction where the company is incorporated, and the jurisdiction to wind up a foreign company has often been described as exorbitant or as usurping the functions of the courts of the country of incorporation.

The case of Wing Hong Construction Limited v Hui Chi Yung and Ors [2017] HKEC 1173 provides an overview of the legal principles which apply to an application for security for costs, where the Plaintiff against whom security is sought is a company and the application is made under section 905 of the Companies Ordinance (Cap 622). This was an appeal against the decision of a Master who had dismissed the Defendant’s application for security for costs against the Plaintiff which was a private company in liquidation. The appeal was allowed and security for costs of HK$2 million ordered.

In Re Lucky Resources (HK) Ltd [2016] 4 HKLRD 301, Hong Kong’s Court of First Instance had to consider the question of whether an arbitration award could be enforced by winding up the company against which the award had been made, without first applying for leave to enforce the award under section 84 of the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609). The Court answered that question in the affirmative.

The reform of claw-back rights in German insolvency proceedings which provides for more legal certainty for creditors has become effective on 5 April 2017.

From theory to practice, planning to enforcement, the answers to 42 of the most frequently asked questions can help you prepare, cope or respond to a restructuring. This Client Alert answers some of the most frequently asked questions with respect to the treatment of pension-plan liabilities and other post-employment benefits (OPEB) obligations in US bankruptcies. Understanding the treatment of pension and OPEB obligations in bankruptcy continues to be important in today’s business environment and the law relating to the treatment of these obligations continues to evolve.

The court’s sanction of DTEK's latest scheme includes novel references to its outstanding bank debt and helpfully rules on the controversial 'domicile test'.

On March 29, 2017, the United Kingdom (UK) delivered notice of its withdrawal from the European Union (EU), triggering the most comprehensive legislative review and revision ever to occur in the UK. This update discusses legislative changes that might affect structured finance. Changes in Law Upon the UK’s withdrawal, EU treaties, directives, directly effective decisions and regulations, and rulings of the European Court of Justice will cease to apply to the UK unless their effect is specifically preserved by English law.

To date, a debt waiver has been frequently used as a tool to successfully restructure German-based companies in financial difficulties.

In Beijing Tong Gang Da Sheng Trade Co., Ltd (as assignee of Greater Beijing Region Expressways Limited) v Allen & Overy & Anor, FACV 2, 3, 4 and 5 of 2016, the Court of Final Appeal held that the addition or substitution of a party to an action amounts to a “new claim”, as defined in section 35(2) of the Limitation Ordinance (Cap 347)) and would not therefore be permitted after the relevant limitation period had expired, unless it came within the rules of court as required under Section 35(3) and (5) of the Limitation Ordinance (Cap 347).

To date, a debt waiver has been frequently used as a tool to successfully restructure German based companies in financial difficulties. A decision of the German Federal Fiscal Court (Bundesfinanzhof) published on February 8, 2017 currently limits such an option, given that it held that one of the main instruments used by tax authorities to grant relief from an otherwise taxable cancellation of debt income (CODI) in the form of the so-called Restructuring Decree (Sanierungserlass) violates fundamental constitutional rights.