Background

Bonds that are traded via clearing houses, such as Euroclear and Clearstream, often contain terms providing that there will be a trustee for the issue, who may be appointed by the participants in the relevant clearing system or by the beneficial owners.

Quite often, the terms of the bonds will contain so-called “no-action clauses”, pursuant to which the trustee may be accorded certain rights and powers to take action on behalf, and instead, of the beneficial bondholders.

In recent years, it has become increasingly common for companies seeking to avoid an immediate winding-up order, particularly listed companies, to pray in aid of alleged efforts to restructure their debts in a bid to obtain adjournments of a winding-up petition. All too often, these valiant attempts fail: see Re Chase On Development Limited [2020] HKCFI 629, Re SMI Holdings Group Limited [2020] HKCFI 824 and Re REXLot Holdings Ltd [2020] HKCFI 2212 to name a few.

In the landmark case of Re China Huiyuan Juice Group Limited [2020] HKCFI 2940, Mr Justice Harris recalibrated the Hong Kong winding-up jurisdiction and its application to an offshore incorporated, Hong Kong-listed entity.

In particular, the decision explains why the Hong Kong court may be unable to wind-up an offshore incorporated, Hong Kong-listed company where all of the company’s operating assets are in the Mainland.

The Material Facts

In the recent decision of Polyline Development Ltd v Ching Lin Chun and Others [2021] HKCFI 483, Mr Recorder Manzoni SC struck out the Plaintiff’s statement of claim and action on a number of grounds. At para. 9 of the judgment, the learned Recorder highlighted the length of the submissions and evidence put forward by the parties, before remarking that “it may be thought that if such voluminous material is necessary in order to persuade the court that the claim is obviously unsustainable, the application is somewhat ambitious”

Hot on the heels of a trio of decisions concerning offshore provisional liquidation, which opened a new and commendable era for Hong Kong’s cross-border insolvency regime (see https://dvc.hk/en/news/cases-detail/heralding-a-new-and-healthy-era-of-cross-border-insolvency-recognition-in-hong-kong-re-fdg-electric-vehicles-ltd-re-

Since our last update in October 2019, there have been many interesting developments in the area of environmental law. The COVID-19 pandemic, reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, and climate change were key topics that shaped judicial, legislative, and policy changes in British Columbia and across Canada. With respect to judicial developments, disputes over natural resource projects, contaminated sites, environmental prosecutions, as well as judicial review or appeal decisions arising from environmental regulatory bodies, brought many changes to the landscape of environmental law.

In the face of increased tenant bankruptcies caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, a key question arises for commercial landlords: what protection do I have from the security provided by my tenant? Tenant-supplied security under a lease can take many forms, including a third party guarantee or indemnity, prepaid rent, a cash deposit, and a letter of credit (an LOC). Crucially, certain forms of security will be more beneficial to a landlord in the face of a tenant bankruptcy, especially where the lease has been disclaimed by the tenant’s trustee in bankruptcy.

Through a trio of decisions, Mr Justice Harris has opened a new and commendable era for Hong Kong’s cross-border insolvency regime. The position under this new era is in brief thus:

First, the Hong Kong court is likely to use the debtor’s centre of main interests (“COMI”) as a yardstick to determine eligibility for recognition and assistance.

In Li Yiqing v Lamtex Holdings Ltd [2021] HKCFI 622, the Companies Court considered whether to put a Bermuda-incorporated company into immediate liquidation in Hong Kong or to adjourn the local winding-up petition to allow restructuring to proceed with the involvement of joint provisional liquidators appointed in Bermuda.

The Court of Appeal of Alberta issued the latest decision in the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings of Bellatrix Exploration Ltd. (Bellatrix).¹