The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment commenced a public consultation process on 8 February 2021, in relation to proposed legislation which will allow for a new restructuring procedure for the rescue of small companies.

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 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 its debts in a bid to obtain adjournments of a winding up petition.

Often in winding-up petitions, contributories of the company, for one reason or another, may wish to oppose the winding-up petition in their own right, including by filing evidence and making submissions at hearings. One major concern a contributory may have in deciding whether to take this course of action is of course the potential costs consequences, especially in the scenario where the opposition is ultimately unsuccessful and the company is wound up.

In Re Ando Credit Limited [2020] HKCFI 2775, the Honourable Mr Justice Harris appointed provisional liquidators over a Hong Kong- incorporated company, in an application  that broke ground as the first of its kind, made  with  the express purpose of  seeking  recognition  in  the Mainland.

It is a basic principle of the law of corporate insolvency that the assets of a company are effectively frozen for the benefit of all of the company’s creditors when a liquidator is appointed. The principle is provided for under Section 602 of the Companies Act 2014. It provides that any disposition of company property, which includes the sale of shares in the company and the charging of company property, that is done without the sanction of the liquidator or a director who has retained the power to do so, will be void unless the court otherwise orders.

Irish landlords to former Monsoon stores in Dublin and Cork have won their High Court claim that their leases with the fashion retailer remained in full force despite the existence of a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) in the UK.

Background

On 3 July 2019, a CVA was approved in the UK by 84 % of Monsoon’s creditors. None of the Dublin or Cork landlords attended the meeting either in person or by proxy.

The High Court refused to appoint an examiner to New Look Retailers (Ireland) Ltd (New Look), where it transpired that it had sufficient funds to survive for a number of months but had not engaged substantively with creditors before applying for the appointment of an examiner.

Background

New Look operates 27 stores in Ireland, all of which are rented. It closed its stores 2 days before the Government mandated lockdown in March.

Our emergence from social and economic lockdown has led to much discussion around “the new normal” for our personal and business lives. In that context, the Courts Service Annual Report for 2019 (“the 2019 Report”) published in July 2020 is an opportunity to look back upon the pre-COVID-19 operation of civil and criminal litigation in the Irish courts, particularly developments on the debt recovery site.

Late in the evening on 30 July, the last day before its summer break, the Irish parliament (Oireachtas) passed the Companies (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Covid-19) Bill 2020. This is likely to be signed into law and commenced within two weeks.

Three of its provisions are particularly relevant to insolvency processes during the COVID-19 crisis.

Creditors’ meetings