Covid-19 has brought about much uncertainty for businesses worldwide and it is timely for a special edition of Going Concerns to provide a "survival guide" in the following jurisdictions Singapore, the People's Republic of China ("PRC"), Hong Kong, United Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates ("UAE"). This special edition will also touch on recent legislation and stimulus packages introduced by governments of the above (where applicable) in response to the Covid-19 outbreak, which will impact both creditors and debtors.
Survival guide
Re Joint Provisional Liquidators of Moody Technology Holdings Ltd [2020] HKCFI 416
The Hong Kong Court has explained why there is no inconsistency between: (a) its domestic insolvency law which does not permit the appointment of provisional liquidators purely for the purposes of restructuring the company; and (b) common law recognition of foreign "soft-touch" provisional liquidators.
What is a soft-touch provisional liquidator?
The Carluccio’s judgment provides some much-needed clarity on the interrelation of the Furlough Scheme and the requirements of insolvency legislation. It is to be commended for its clarity and for the fact that it had to construe the workings of the Furlough Scheme in the absence of any statutory guidance as to its implementation. It is to be hoped that, when the Government comes to enact the necessary legislative measures (including perhaps amendments to Schedule B1 and IR 2016), that it does so with this judgment very firmly in mind.
Introduction
The immediate focus for Britain’s authorities when dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic has been, quite rightly, to secure the best possible health outcome for the greatest number of people.
Subsequently, following a wave of concern regarding the best way of maintaining the financial status-quo for (i) businesses, (ii) employees, and (iii) individuals, the UK government announced an unprecedented series of assistance programmes, designed to counter the impact of previously unknown, and unquantifiable, distress.
Introduction
Clearly there are some major economic challenges ahead.
Many businesses may be able to withstand the challenges ahead but it may very well be that their trading counterparties (whether suppliers, customers or other stakeholders) will not. Whilst these times can represent an opportunity for some, such as potential acquirers (whether of businesses, assets or distressed debt), in most cases, the climate represents a threat to businesses.
While in previous weeks the winding up petition list has been adjourned for a minimum of three months, this week’s list was successfully conducted by Skype. This article discusses how the hearings worked.
As most businesses, landlords and property solicitors will now know, s.82 of the Coronavirus Act 2020 (“CA 2020”) means there can be no forfeiture for non-payment of rent until July 2020, possibly later (“the relevant period”). But forfeiture has never been the only option open to a landlord whose tenant isn’t paying rent. The government lockdown was announced just two days before the March quarter day, with the inevitable consequence that many businesses did not pay the March quarter day rent.
In these unusual times, Hardwicke is open for business as usual and here to help you and your clients with the multiple issues that may arise out of the current economic conditions. This information update is to help keep you up to date with developments and to share our insight in response to the developments our country is going through at this unprecedented time.
We will be providing regular information to keep you up to date. This update covers:
Although the position is fast-moving and guidance is expected to be given in due course by the Law Society, it is presently understood that remote video conferencing technology such as Skype or Zoom could be used by a practising solicitor to administer a statutory declaration.
Today’s list of winding up petitions has been adjourned for a minimum of three months with petitions being re-listed for June, July and August. ICC Judge Mullen recited in his order that having considered the Protocol for Remote Hearings dated 20th March 2020 and the LCJ’s Review of Court Arrangements due to COVID-19 dated 23rd March 2020, he has concluded that the list “cannot presently be conducted remotely” and that “satisfactory arrangements to ensure safety cannot be put in place”.