Sir Alastair Norris’ High Court judgment of 14 May 2021, confirming the sanctioning of the scheme of arrangement of DTEK Finance PLC in respect of existing bank lenders (the “Bank Scheme”) and the scheme of arrangement of DTEK Energy B.V. in respect of the outstanding notes (the “Note Scheme”) has now been published.
The restrictions on filing statutory demands and winding up petitions has been extended (again) until the end of September 2021. At the same time, the moratorium on landlords evicting commercial tenants has been extended to March 2022. Both are longer than expected. Perhaps more interestingly, the announcement includes reference to the imposition of an arbitration mechanic for arrears – a step from the Government that will provide another route to impose a compromise on arrears.
In the latest High Court decision relating to Company Voluntary Arrangements in the UK, the judge held that the Regis hairdressing group CVA should be revoked on the basis that it favoured shareholders at the expense of landlord creditors
A trio of landmark decisions by Mr Justice Harris have altered and hugely improved the scheme of arrangement practice in Hong Kong. The new scheme practice points are in brief thus:
First, where an offshore incorporated company seeks to restructure its debts by means of a Hong Kong scheme of arrangement, it should not at the same time pursue a parallel offshore scheme just because it is incorporated offshore. Any such parallel scheme must be justified. Pursuing an unnecessary parallel scheme could entail the following consequences:
A trio of landmark decisions by Mr Justice Harris have altered and hugely improved the scheme of arrangement practice in Hong Kong. The new scheme practice points are in brief thus:
First, where an offshore incorporated company seeks to restructure its debts by means of a Hong Kong scheme of arrangement, it should not at the same time pursue a parallel offshore scheme just because it is incorporated offshore. Any such parallel scheme must be justified. Pursuing an unnecessary parallel scheme could entail the following consequences:
On 12 May 2021, Mr Justice Snowden sanctioned Virgin Active’s three inter-conditional restructuring plans under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006. The case has been followed with significant interest in the restructuring community because the restructuring plans included the most extensive cross-class cram down proposal since the introduction of the restructuring plan process last year (DeepOcean and Smile Telecoms are the only other restructuring plans to utilise the cram-down mechanism).
The government has introduced the Debt Respite Scheme (Breathing Space), which came into effect on 4 May 2021, which allows individuals who are struggling with debt to apply for a “breathing space” in which to sort out their finances. This scheme, which was introduced in response to the unprecedented impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, includes residential tenants who are in arrears of rent.
What is a breathing space?
There are two types of breathing space:-
Hong Kong and the Mainland have agreed a new co-operation mechanism for cross-border insolvency. Under the agreement, liquidators from Hong Kong may apply to Mainland courts for recognition of insolvency proceedings in Hong Kong, whilst bankruptcy administrators from the Mainland can apply to the Hong Kong High Court for recognition of bankruptcy proceedings in the Mainland.
Hong Kong and the Mainland have agreed a new co-operation mechanism for cross-border insolvency.
A Word of Counsel 9 1. In Hung Yip (HK) Engineering Company Ltd v Kinli Civil Engineering Ltd [2021] HKCFI 153, Harris J reminded practitioners of the true principles applicable to an injunction restraining the presentation of a winding-up petition. Prior to this judgement, it would be fair to say that a number of practitioners had proceeded on the assumption that the hurdle for an applicant to cross was effectively the same as that to defeat a creditor's petition. Introduction 2.
Puncturing a popular myth, Mr Justice Harris in Re FDG Electric Vehicles Limited [2020] HKCFI 2931 held that when the Hong Kong court recognises offshore provisional liquidation orders (“PL Order”), there would not be an automatic stay on proceedings in Hong Kong.
Further, any assistance granted to the offshore provisional liquidators must be restricted to assets in Hong Kong.
The decision is sound in principle and sits well with international insolvency standards.
The Myth