Introduction Hong Kong At a Glance Population: 7 million Languages: English, Cantonese and Mandarin Time zones: 8 hours ahead of Greenwich Mean Time Climate: Subtropical with long, hot summers and pleasant temperate winters Political System
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.
A recent decision of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has added an additional eligibility requirement for the filing of Chapter 15 cases. In Drawbridge Special Opportunities Fund LP v. Barnet (In re Barnet), ___ F.3d ___, 2013 WL 6482499 (2d Cir.
One of the effects of commercial globalization is that the bankruptcy filing of a debtor with transnational business relationships will sometimes result in a clash between the substantive bankruptcy laws of different countries. A frequent question is whether the bankruptcy laws of a foreign country should be brought to bear upon creditors located in the United States, even where foreign bankruptcy law is at odds with the laws of the United States.
In a decision that demonstrates the potentially broad impact of the forthcoming Supreme Court decision in Bellingham, the Fifth Circuit held that bankruptcy judges may not “determine” non-core matters even where the parties consent. BP RE, L.P. v. RML Waxahachie Dodge, L.L.C. (In re BP RE, L.P.), No. 12-51270 (5th Cir. Nov. 11, 2013), see Executive Benefits Ins. Agency v. Arkinson (In re Bellingham Ins. Agency), 702 F.3d 553 (9th Cir. 2012), cert. granted 133 S.Ct. 2880 (2013) (set for oral argument January 14, 2014).
Adding to the split of authority that has developed since the Supreme Court’s decision in Stern v. Marshall, 131 S.Ct. 2594 (2011), in Wellness Int’l Network Ltd. v. Sharif, No. 12-1349 (Aug. 21, 2013), the 7th Circuit aligned with the 6th Circuit’s decision in Waldman v. Stone, 698 F.3d 910 (6th Cir. 2012), to hold that a party may not consent or waive objection to the limited Constitutional authority of an Article I bankruptcy court.