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 a recent judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that if a company acting in its capacity as director of another company is liable based on a wrongful act (onrechtmatige daad), Dutch law provides that the natural persons who were acting as directors of that director-company at the time the liability arose are jointly and severally liable.

De Wet civielrechtelijk bestuursverbod voorziet kort gezegd in de mogelijkheid voor de rechtbank om in geval van faillissement een (oud-)bestuurder of feitelijk beleidsbepaler van een rechtspersoon voor maximaal vijf jaar te verbieden een bestuursfunctie of een functie als commissaris te bekleden.

The acknowledgement of a claim interrupts the five years’ prescription period for claims for payment (art. 3:318 DCC). On 21 April 2017, the Dutch Supreme Court answered the question whether the conduct of one company can qualify as the acknowledgement of a claim by another company (ECLI:NL:HR:2017:755).

As from today, the Insolvency Regulation Recast (EU) 2015/848 will apply to insolvency proceedings commenced on or after this date.

In its judgment of 9 December 2016, the Supreme Court ruled that once the debtor of a receivable has been notified of a right of pledge over that receivable, the holder of the right of pledge not only has the power to collect the amount due under the receivable but also is entitled to file for the debtor's bankruptcy if the debtor fails to pay this amount.

The qualification of a right as a 'right in rem' (zakelijk recht), within the meaning of Article 5 of Regulation No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (the "Regulation") must be determined according to the law of the place where the asset concerned is situated and the right in rem must satisfy certain criteria set out in Article 5(2) of the Regulation.

On 29 March 2017, Advocate General Mengozzi rendered his opinion to the EU Court of Justice in the landmark case regarding the Estro pre-packed bankruptcy.