Hong Kong is a common law jurisdiction, and its legal system is based on English law. Following Hong Kong’s handover to China on 1 July 1997, the Basic Law of Hong Kong is the constitutional document of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Article 8 of the Basic Law provides that: “laws previously in force in Hong Kong, that is, the common law, rules of equity, ordinances, subordinate legislation and customary law shall be maintained, except for any that contravene [the Basic Law], and subject to any amendment by the legislature of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.”

In most bankruptcies, the company decides to file for relief. In involuntary bankruptcies, creditors force the company into bankruptcy. Involuntary petitions are an extreme remedy, and therefore the requirements and standards to meet for filing such petitions are strictly construed and applied. If creditors meet the requirements under the Bankruptcy Code for filing an involuntary petition, it can serve as a powerful tool to use against a debtor.

Key Issues

The Privy Council has recently delivered a landmark judgment on the interplay between arbitration agreements and winding up petitions. The Board held that the English case of Salford Estates (No 2) Ltd v Altomart Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1575; Ch 589, which had adopted a pro-arbitration approach to stay or dismiss winding up petitions based on debts covered by arbitration agreements, even if the debts were not genuinely disputed on substantial grounds was wrongly decided.

Unlike traditional Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases, sometimes called "free fall" cases, where a debtor files for bankruptcy and determines its path out of bankruptcy over the course of the following months, some debtors enter into bankruptcy with a plan entirely (or mostly) drafted, with an emergence strategy already completed. In these cases, debtors enter bankruptcy with pre-packaged plans or pre-negotiated plans (sometimes called pre-arranged plans) ready to file on or just after their petition date.

In a bankruptcy case, a preference action1 is often asserted pursuant to Section 547 of the Bankruptcy Code against a creditor to claw back funds paid to the creditor in the 90 days prior to the bankruptcy. While the most common defenses to a preference action are the ordinary course of business defense2, the new value defense3, and the contemporaneous exchange for new value defense4, there are other defenses that a savvy creditor should consider to reduce or even eliminate preference liability.

Key Issues

Sales pursuant to Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code have become commonplace in bankruptcy cases as a mechanism to liquidate a debtor's assets and maximize value for creditors. Selling the debtor's assets to a third party provides a new go-forward business partner for the debtor's vendors and customers, and likely provides continuity of jobs for the debtor's former employees. Due to the benefits associated with a sale of the debtor's assets, creditors or parties-in-interest may be under the misconception that they need not pay attention to the sale process.

Pursuant to Section 341 of Title 11 of the U.S. Code (the Bankruptcy Code), the U.S. Trustee is required to convene and preside over a meeting of the creditors of a debtor (the 341 Meeting). The purpose of the 341 Meeting is to examine the debtor's financial position and to confirm facts stated by the debtor in the bankruptcy filing. While creditors are not required to attend the 341 Meeting, creditors have an opportunity to examine the debtor and ask questions related to the debtor's financials and the bankruptcy case.

When individuals and certain entities (such as partnerships, trusts and other unincorporated bodies) have debts that they are unable to repay to their creditors, they may consider or be faced with bankruptcy, which is known as sequestration in Scotland. However, sequestration is just one avenue. Alternative statutory debt solutions are available, which can provide breathing space and allow debts to be repaid over time, without creditor pressure.

Although the law, rules and procedures governing corporate insolvency in Scotland and England and Wales are similar in many respects, Scotland has a separate legal system and there are some important differences in the provisions and rules applicable north and south of the border. The differences include:

Digital assets may be new, but existing English insolvency laws and principles can deal with them. So finds the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce (UKJT) in its ‘Legal Statement on Digital Assets and English Insolvency Law’, published this week.

Key takeaways include: