In Re Southwest Pacific Bauxite (HK) Ltd [2018] 2 HKLRD 449, the Honourable Mr Justice Harris held that a petition to wind up a company on the ground of insolvency should “generally be dismissed” where:
(a) | a company disputes the debt relied on by the petitioner; |
(b) | the contract under which the debt is alleged to arise contains an arbitration clause that governs any dispute relating to the debt; and |
(c) |
Less than four years after the last fiscal amnesty, on 5 August, the Romanian government published a fiscal amnesty ordinance (No. 6/2019) that sets the framework for restructuring the debt of taxpayers with outstanding tax obligations and for the cancellation of accessory obligations.
On 13 June 2019 the new Insolvency Law(DIFC Law No. 1 of 2019) and the associated Insolvency Regulations 2019 (the “Law”) came in to effect in the Dubai International Finance Centre (“DIFC”) repealing and replacing the DIFC’s Insolvency Law of 2009 (the “Old Law”).
In recent years, the Hong Kong courts have been required to deal with a significant number of cases concerning cross border insolvency. Most notably, a number of cases have arisen where insolvency practitioners appointed by overseas courts seek recognition of their authority to act on behalf of overseas companies placed in liquidation or a similar insolvency regime, and to seek authority to use powers equivalent to those granted to liquidators by the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap.
A recent High Court decision considered the duty of Law of Property Act (LPA) receivers when selling secured property to an associated company of the creditor. The LPA receivers were chartered surveyors, appointed by the creditor in respect of a cider factory over which it had security and were alleged to have acted in bad faith by preferring the interests of the creditor over the interests of the debtor company.
A real, as opposed to remote, risk of insolvency is not necessarily enough for the duties of a board of directors to switch from being owed to its shareholders to being owed to its creditors.
A Court of Appeal decision last week has broadly upheld previous TCC guidance as to the ability of companies in liquidation or those subject to CVAs to commence and enforce adjudication proceedings against their creditors. Although theoretically possible, adjudication proceedings commenced by companies in liquidation are now liable to be restrained by a court injunction. Adjudications by companies subject to a CVA are more likely to be appropriate and, depending on the circumstances, may be enforced without a stay of execution.
Insolvency set-off: a recap
In Re Kin Ming Toy Manufactory Ltd (in liquidation), HCCW 402/2015 [2018] HKCFI 2057 and 2285, Harris J of the Court of First Instance dismissed an application under section 182 of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (the Ordinance), Cap. 32, brought by the liquidators of a company in liquidation seeking to void two payments made out of the company’s bank account after commencement of the winding up proceedings, and further ordered that the liquidators be held personally liable for the costs of the unsuccessful application.
Key Facts
The Chancellor announced in his budget that the Crown is to be re-instated as a preferential creditor in insolvency, reversing the changes brought in by The Enterprise Act 2002.
In the wake of increased competition stemming from the recent liberalisation of the Bulgarian electricity market, more and more electricity players and major electricity traders such as Future Energy and Energy Financing Group are now facing serious financial difficulties.
According to reports, some are now fighting to stay afloat after the initiation of insolvency proceedings. Given this increased market pressure, analysts state it is likely these and other energy traders may declare bankruptcy and face eventual liquidation.