A Hong Kong court has reminded debtors of the need to present a credible and realistic restructuring proposal when facing creditors threatening winding up actions. In Re Jiayuan International Group Limited (佳源國際控股有限公司) [2023] HKCFI 1254, the Honourable Madam Justice Linda Chan warned that it is not enough for a debtor company to merely point to commercial discussions with some of the creditors when seeking an adjournment.

The characterisation of a charge as fixed or floating can have significant ramifications for the chargee on chargor’s insolvency. This is because the holder of a fixed charge enjoys significant advantage, in terms of the order of priority of distributions to creditors, over a floating charge holder.

The English Court has refused to sanction two separate restructuring plans proposed by Nasmyth Group Limited (Nasmyth) and The Great Annual Savings Company Ltd (GAS). Both companies sought to use Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 to “cram down” His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC). Whilst neither decision is the first time that Part 26A has been used in this way¹, they are the first to involve any active participation by HMRC in the sanction hearing².

The administrators of Avanti Communications Limited (the “Company”) sought directions from the High Court as to whether purported fixed charges in favour of the secured lenders to the satellite operating business should be recharacterised as floating charges (In the matter of Avanti Communications Limited (In administration) [2023] EWHC 940 (Ch)).

Summary of decision

The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal (CFA) has confirmed a Court of Appeal finding that the court should respect the effect of an exclusive jurisdiction clause in bankruptcy proceedings, just as it does in ordinary civil actions.

In a recent decision, the Second Circuit held that only parties with the right to pursue a breach of contract claim under an executory contract or unexpired lease have the right to demand a cure payment in the event the executory contract or lease is assumed by a debtor in bankruptcy, affirming previous decisions by the bankruptcy and district courts, and limiting the scope of Bankruptcy Code § 365(b)(1)(A).

Globalisation means that the effects of a business entering insolvency proceedings rarely stay within the territorial confines of a single jurisdiction; one need only look to the recent cryptocurrency bankruptcies as evidence of this. Cross-border insolvencies are no longer the preserve of large multinational corporation failures. Globalisation and the advent of digitisation mean that even small enterprises have customers, assets, and suppliers in multiple countries. This is particularly so across Asia.

Key takeaways

In BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and others,¹ the UK Supreme Court considered for the first time the existence, content and triggers of the obligation on directors to have regard to the interests of creditors when a company becomes insolvent or is bordering on insolvency (the Creditor Duty).

This decision addresses important issues for directors, stakeholders, and advisors of UK companies.

Background

The crypto winter has brought a flurry of bankruptcy filings into the digital asset space. As pioneering cryptocurrency platforms collide with the Bankruptcy Code, unprecedented questions of law have left customers asking a fundamental question: who owns my crypto?

This question is especially prevalent in cases where the debtor company’s platform offered custodial accounts to customers. Digital asset custodial accounts have unusual attributes that have revealed cracks in customer protection when custodians have filed for bankruptcy.

The Italian Government has approved the Legislative decree no. 19 of 2 March 2023 (the “Decree”) implementing in Italy the Directive (EU) 2019/2121 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2019, amending the Directive (EU) 2017/1132 regarding, among other things, cross-border mergers, demergers and transformations.