Kai Zeng and Kon M Asimacopoulos, Kirkland & Ellis

This is an extract from the first edition of GRR's The Art of the Ad Hoc. The whole publication is available here. 

The purpose and role of ad hoc committees from a debtor’s perspective: the initial phase

Yushan Ng and Helen Ward, Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft

This is an extract from the first edition of GRR's The Art of the Ad Hoc. The whole publication is available here. 

Chris Howard, Sullivan & Cromwell

This is an extract from the first edition of GRR's The Art of the Ad Hoc. The whole publication is available here. 

The relationship of an ad hoc committee with its stakeholder constituency

No power to bind: the importance of the underlying finance documents in relation to decision making

Nick Angel, Peter Newman and Edward Rasp, Milbank LLP

This is an extract from the first edition of GRR's The Art of the Ad Hoc. The whole publication is available here. 

Role and powers

Yen Sum and Lucy Cox, Sidley Austin

This is an extract from the first edition of GRR's The Art of the Ad Hoc. The whole publication is available here. 

How many committees?

In a capital structure involving multiple external debt tranches, one of the first questions that arises is the number of committees that will be required.

Generally speaking, the most appropriate jurisdiction in which to wind up a company is the jurisdiction where the company is incorporated, and the jurisdiction to wind up a foreign company has often been described as exorbitant or as usurping the functions of the courts of the country of incorporation.

The case of Wing Hong Construction Limited v Hui Chi Yung and Ors [2017] HKEC 1173 provides an overview of the legal principles which apply to an application for security for costs, where the Plaintiff against whom security is sought is a company and the application is made under section 905 of the Companies Ordinance (Cap 622). This was an appeal against the decision of a Master who had dismissed the Defendant’s application for security for costs against the Plaintiff which was a private company in liquidation. The appeal was allowed and security for costs of HK$2 million ordered.

In Re Lucky Resources (HK) Ltd [2016] 4 HKLRD 301, Hong Kong’s Court of First Instance had to consider the question of whether an arbitration award could be enforced by winding up the company against which the award had been made, without first applying for leave to enforce the award under section 84 of the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609). The Court answered that question in the affirmative.

In Beijing Tong Gang Da Sheng Trade Co., Ltd (as assignee of Greater Beijing Region Expressways Limited) v Allen & Overy & Anor, FACV 2, 3, 4 and 5 of 2016, the Court of Final Appeal held that the addition or substitution of a party to an action amounts to a “new claim”, as defined in section 35(2) of the Limitation Ordinance (Cap 347)) and would not therefore be permitted after the relevant limitation period had expired, unless it came within the rules of court as required under Section 35(3) and (5) of the Limitation Ordinance (Cap 347).

This is the third in a series of articles highlighting the changes to be brought in by the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Ordinance 2016 (Amendment Ordinance). Since our last article, 13 February 2017 has been announced as the date when the Amendment Ordinance will come into effect. The Amendment Ordinance makes amendments to the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (CWUMPO) and the Companies (Winding Up) Rules (CWUR).