When the Hong Kong Court recognises offshore soft-touch provisional liquidation, will there be an automatic stay of proceedings in Hong Kong?
Recently, in Re FDG Electric Vehicles Limited [2020] HKCFI 2931, the Companies Court answered “no”. In doing so, the Court revisited the wording of the standard-form recognition order.
Soft-touch provisional liquidations
El pasado 18 de noviembre de 2020, entró en vigor el Real Decreto-ley 34/2020, de 17 de noviembre de 2020, de medidas urgentes de apoyo a la solvencia empresarial y al sector energético, y en materia tributaria. |
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) on 13 November 2020 issued the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) (Fourth Amendment) Regulations, 2020 (Amendment) which introduced seminal changes to the liquidation regime under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The Amendment has been introduced on the back of the discussion paper issued by IBBI on 26 August 2020 on Corporate Liquidation Process (Discussion Paper).
Background
On 24 October 2020, the UAE Cabinet announced its decision to amend Federal Law No. 9 of 2016 (the "Bankruptcy Law") by adding certain provisions to allow for business continuity during emergency situations, including pandemics and natural disasters. This is a timely amendment to the Bankruptcy Law and has been introduced in response to the COVID-19 global pandemic.
On 29 September 2020, the Federal Court of Australia published its much anticipated decision in Habrok (Dalgaranga) Pty Ltd v Gascoyne Resources Ltd [2020] FCA 1395, dismissing Habrok’s attempt to set aside a Deed of Company Arrangement (DOCA). The DOCA had been the culmination of a 15 month administration, and facilitated the recapitalisation, refinance, and relisting of the gold miner Gascoyne Resources Ltd (GCY) and its subsidiaries (together with GCY, the GCY Group).
We are pleased to announce the publication of the third edition of the Herbert Smith Freehills Guide to Restructuring, Turnaround and Insolvency, Asia Pacific.
Against a backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting economic downturn, we are seeing companies and lenders respond to a new and challenging business environment. The challenges associated with this new environment are further exacerbated as the influencing factors change in nature and intensity.
Statutory demand is a common and important tool in the winding up process. But recently, the Hong Kong Court of First Instance has reminded us that it is by no means a must.
INTRODUCTION
Recently, the Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal has passed an order reiterating that once a resolution plan is approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC), the successful resolution applicant cannot be permitted to be withdraw its plan.
RELEVANT FACTS
A contentious issue in the interplay between the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) and the Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act) has been the applicability of Section 18 of the Limitation Act (Section 18), which stipulates that a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time of the acknowledgement of liability in writing before the expiration of the prescribed period of limitation.