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
Bent u bestuurder van een vennootschap die failliet is? Dan kunt u, onder omstandigheden, aansprakelijk worden gehouden voor het boedeltekort. Met deze 3 praktische tips kunt u het risico op aansprakelijkheid zo veel mogelijk voorkomen.
Bogra is a company that is active within the funeral industry. As a result of serious financial problems, an administrator (bewindvoerder) was appointed on 28 June 2017. On the same date Bogra was declared bankrupt (30 June 2017), the employment agreements of Bogra’s employees were terminated. Funico acquired (part of) Bogra’s assets on 18 July 2017 due to an asset transaction. Effective 19 July 2017, Bogra’s activities were continued by Bogra Uitvaartkisten.
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.
Crusade against dormant companies: make sure you file your annual accounts on time!
Introduction
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.
On 5 September 2017, the Dutch legislator published an amended bill on pre-insolvency proceedings in the Netherlands1 for consultation purposes.2 The Bill contains a proposal for an amendment to the Dutch Bankruptcy Act (Faillissementswet) which enables a company in financial difficulties to propose a composition outside insolvency proceedings to its creditors and shareholders, to restructure problematic debts.
The recast Insolvency Regulation of 20 May 2015 embodies a further step towards the harmonisation of European Union insolvency law. The main provisions are set to apply to insolvency proceedings as of 26 June 2017.
The key changes relate to a broader scope, the “centre of main interests” (COMI) concept, secondary proceedings, group insolvencies and the introduction of insolvency registers. Overall, the new elements will increase the chance of a positive outcome in complex cross-border insolvencies and offer better cooperation and transparency.