In the past couple of decades, jurisdictions all over the world have been required to grapple with problems arising out of corporate insolvencies with cross-border elements. Solving these problems has required considerable judicial flexibility and innovation, but judges in some jurisdictions have been helped by the enactment of legislation designed to deal with cross-border status.

The impact of an arbitration clause on the Court’s discretion to grant a winding up order was recently considered by the Court of First Instance in Hong Kong.

In Lasmos Limited v Southwest Pacific Bauxite (HK) Limited (HCCW 227/2017; [2018] HKCFI 426), the Court dismissed a winding up petition in view of an arbitration clause contained in the agreement between the parties and held that the dispute concerning the alleged debt should be dealt with in accordance with the arbitration clause.

Facts

If a transaction by a company amounts to an "unlawful distribution", and the company subsequently goes into liquidation, will an action for recovery of the benefits of that distribution, brought against the directors who authorised the transaction, be statute-barred if it is commenced by the liquidator of the company more than 6 years after the distribution was made?

DOMESTIC

Research on the impact of repossession risk on mortgage default

Terry O’Malley published an economic letter considering whether reducing the risk of repossession resulted in more Irish borrowers defaulting on their mortgages. The letter considers the impact of the ''Dunne judgment'' in 2011 which temporarily removed a bank's ability to lawfully repossess a home. One of the key findings was that borrowers defaulted on mortgages at a higher rate than if the repossession regime at the time was legally upheld.

Introduction

There are two principal mechanisms for the dissolution of a solvent Irish company:

• Voluntary Strike-Off (VSO); and
• Members' Voluntary Liquidation (MVL).

To the extent there are other Irish or EU entities in the group, it may also be possible to dissolve the company by way of merger with another group entity.

In a recent winding-up case, Discreet Ltd v. Wing Bo Building Construction Co., Ltd [2017] HCCW 49/2017, the Court confirmed that when there is clearly a cross-claim which exceeds the sum claimed by the petitioner, and it is clear that the cross-claim is genuine and based on substantial grounds, the petition can amount to an abuse of process.

Background

In Reilly & Personal Insolvency Acts 2012-2015 [2017] IEHC 558, Baker J, 5 October, 2017, the High Court held that applications to Court under Section 115A of the Personal Insolvency Acts 2012-2015 (the Acts), for approval of a Personal Insolvency Arrangement (PIA) despite its rejection by creditors, must be made by a Personal Insolvency Practitioner (PIP) and not by the Debtor themselves.

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.