“…it is fallacious and unrealistic for the Company to assume that the value of the Haitian Shares remained the same from February to August 2019. Between February and August 2019, Haitian Energy had published no less than nine announcements suggest that the financial condition of Haitian Energy was in a state of flux, and that the value of the Haitian Shares was susceptible to fluctuation.”
– William Wong SC (Deputy High Court Judge in Re Victor River Ltd)
INTRODUCTION
简介
中华人民共和国最高人民法院（「最高人民法院」）与香港特别行政区政府于2021年5月14日签订了《最高人民法院与香港特别行政区政府关于内地与香港特别行政区法院相互认可和协助破产程序的会谈纪要》。在试点计划下，香港的清盘人可向内地试点地区的有关中级人民法院申请认可香港的清盘程序；同样地，内地的破产管理人可向香港高等法院申请认可内地的破产程序（「试点计划」）。最近在Re China All Access (Holdings) Ltd [2021] HKCFI 1842一案中，香港法院首次考虑这项近期发展及试点计划。
背景
簡介
最近在Re Cheung Hing Chik also known as Charles H.C. Cheung, the debtor [2021] HKCA 981一案中，上訴法院澄清，在決定是否應撤銷破產令時，法院既可考慮在破產令發出之前的事實，也可考慮在破產令發出之後的事實。要成功申請撤銷破產令，申請人須證明涉及與先前法院席前證據有重大差異的特殊情況，作為推翻破產令的充分理據。
背景
本案是就一項於2020年8月3日發出的破產令（「該破產令」）提出的上訴。呈請人是一間公司，其銀行帳戶被破產人偷去或挪用了749,000美元。於2020年2月27日，呈請人就上述金額向破產人發出法定要求償債書，但不獲還款。在2020年8月3日進行的呈請聆訊上，破產人口頭上表示他能夠償還該債務，因為：
- 他可將其於張慶植會計師行有限公司的50% 權益出售，估計約值600萬元；及
- 他可能會收到若干其他資金。
法官不信納，並認為沒有證據顯示破產人能償還債務，因此發出了該破產令。
Introduction
Introduction
In the recent case of Re Cheung Hing Chik also known as Charles H.C. Cheung, the debtor [2021] HKCA 981, the Court of Appeal clarified that in determining whether a bankruptcy order should be rescinded, the court is entitled to take into account facts both before or after the bankruptcy order. To succeed, an applicant for rescission has to show exceptional circumstances, involving a material difference to what was before the court earlier, to justify the overturning of the bankruptcy order.
Background
簡介
中華人民共和國最高人民法院（「最高人民法院」）與香港特別行政區政府於2021年5月14日簽訂了《最高人民法院與香港特別行政區政府關於內地與香港特別行政區法院相互認可和協助破產程序的會談紀要》。在試點計劃下，香港的清盤人可向內地試點地區的有關中級人民法院申請認可香港的清盤程序；同樣地，內地的破產管理人可向香港高等法院申請認可內地的破產程序（「試點計劃」）。最近在Re China All Access (Holdings) Ltd [2021] HKCFI 1842一案中，香港法院首次考慮這項近期發展及試點計劃。
背景
简介
最近在Re Cheung Hing Chik also known as Charles H.C. Cheung, the debtor [2021] HKCA 981一案中，上诉法院澄清，在决定是否应撤销破产令时，法院既可考虑在破产令发出之前的事实，也可考虑在破产令发出之后的事实。要成功申请撤销破产令，申请人须证明涉及与先前法院席前证据有重大差异的特殊情况，作为推翻破产令的充分理据。
背景
本案是就一项于2020年8月3日发出的破产令（「该破产令」）提出的上诉。呈请人是一间公司，其银行帐户被破产人偷去或挪用了749,000美元。于2020年2月27日，呈请人就上述金额向破产人发出法定要求偿债书，但不获还款。在2020年8月3日进行的呈请聆讯上，破产人口头上表示他能够偿还该债务，因为：
- 他可将其于张庆植会计师行有限公司的50% 权益出售，估计约值600万元；及
- 他可能会收到若干其他资金。
法官不信纳，并认为没有证据显示破产人能偿还债务，因此发出了该破产令。
The Government has extended the restrictions in place concerning winding-up petitions and forfeiture of business tenancies until 30 September 2021 and 25 March 2022 respectively.
The extensions will receive a mixed reception, with landlords likely to feel particularly aggrieved at the limitations imposed on their ability to pursue debt (by winding-up petition) in circumstances where the tenant can pay, but won’t pay.
Insolvency practitioners will need to be familiar with three new Statements of Insolvency Practice which were introduced with effect from 1 April 2021.
Companies House temporarily paused their strike off processes in April 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The effect of this was to stay all strike off action. The stay was lifted on 10 October 2020 but stayed for a second time on 21 January 2021.
The second stay was lifted on 8 March 2021 and, absent further significant disruption caused by COVID-19, is unlikely to be subject to a further stay.