The Chinese Maritime Courts are not obliged to recognise and/or enforce foreign courts' orders, therefore Hanjin's creditors could still arrest Hanjin-related vessels in China if they have maritime claims (recognised under Chinese law) against the registered owners and/or bareboat charterers of the said vessels.

Container leasing companies and bunker suppliers could also file applications in order to request that the corresponding Chinese Maritime Courts order Hanjin to return the leased containers to Hanjin or the bunkers supplied to Hanjin in certain circumstances.

Hong Kong has not adopted into domestic legislation the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross Border Insolvency.

Unlike jurisdictions which have adopted the Model Law, e.g. the United Kingdom, an application to the Hong Kong Courts for recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings requires a balancing exercise of competing aims: assisting the foreign court conducting the main insolvency proceedings in achieving a universal distribution of assets, and ensuring that creditors seeking the Hong Kong Courts' assistance are treated fairly and equitably in enforcing their rights.

On 1 September 2016, the Korean Court issued orders commencing rehabilitation proceedings for Hanjin and staying proceedings against it and its assets (Korean Orders).

The purpose of the Korean proceeding is to rehabilitate the insolvent debtor company, Hanjin, by restructuring its debts. The debts are restructured according to a rehabilitation plan approved by the creditors and the Korean Court. The aim is to protect Hanjin while it trades out of its debt.

The Briggs Report

The final report of Lord Justice Briggs' LJ's Civil Courts Structure Review was published on 27 July 2016. Lord Justice Briggs identifies five main weaknesses of the civil courts structure, namely:

It is now generally accepted that the Companies Act, No 71 of 2008 (Act) is an overhaul of our corporate law landscape. This shift is even more evident with the introduction of a new business rescue regime and along with it, the general moratorium on legal proceedings against a company in business rescue.

Section 133 of the Act provides that no legal proceedings including enforcement action may commence or continue against a company undergoing business rescue, save where amongst other exceptions, consent is granted by the court or obtained from the business rescue practitioner.

In a landmark judgment on 9 September 2016, the High Court of Singapore exercised its inherent jurisdiction to grant, on an ex parte basis, interim orders for the recognition of the Hanjin Shipping Co Ltd (Hanjin Shipping) Korean rehabilitation proceedings in Singapore.

Hanjin Shipping's financial collapse has been well publicised. As a consequence of its collapse one can anticipate that there will be displaced containers worldwide with Hanjin vessels being arrested short of or at destination, being moored up or remaining outside port limits to avoid arrest or being stuck at a port short of destination with the port authority unwilling to provide port services absent payment in advance. One press report we have seen suggests that in excess of 500,000 TEUs already loaded on Hanjin vessels may be subject to delay.

As you may be aware, one of South Korea's largest shipowners, Hanjin Shipping Co Ltd (“Hanjin”), has applied for court rehabilitation in Korea. On 1 September 2016 the Seoul Central District Court (Bankruptcy Division 6) issued a decision accepting that application and commencing rehabilitation proceedings.

Based on our experience in dealing with recent rehabilitations involving the Korean shipping industry and working closely with Korean lawyers, we set out below a few guidance points.

What is a Korean Court Rehabilitation?

Prescription is one word which every creditor (and attorney) dread. Prescription extinguishes a debt and there is very little a creditor can do once that proverbial ship has sailed.

The Prescription Act, No 68 of 1969 (Prescription Act), on a good day, has its challenges, but the situation is even more uncertain when an insolvent estate is concerned.

Rogers J, with Nuku J concurring, in the recent judgment of Van Deventer and Another v Nedbank Ltd 2016 (3) SA 622 (WCC) shed some very needed light on this issue.

In Hattingh v Roux NO & Others 2011 (3) SA 135 (WCC), the plaintiff, Hattingh, sought to show that the defendant, Roux junior, intentionally and unlawfully injured Hattingh by executing an illegal and highly dangerous manoeuvre during a scrum in an Under 19 rugby match between two Western Cape high school teams.

Among other issues considered by the court was the delictual ground of intent: whether Roux junior, if he had in fact executed the manoeuvre which injured Hattingh, acted negligently or intentionally in doing so.