In recent years, the Hong Kong courts have been required to deal with a significant number of cases concerning cross border insolvency. Most notably, a number of cases have arisen where insolvency practitioners appointed by overseas courts seek recognition of their authority to act on behalf of overseas companies placed in liquidation or a similar insolvency regime, and to seek authority to use powers equivalent to those granted to liquidators by the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap.

In Re Kin Ming Toy Manufactory Ltd (in liquidation), HCCW 402/2015 [2018] HKCFI 2057 and 2285, Harris J of the Court of First Instance dismissed an application under section 182 of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (the Ordinance), Cap. 32, brought by the liquidators of a company in liquidation seeking to void two payments made out of the company’s bank account after commencement of the winding up proceedings, and further ordered that the liquidators be held personally liable for the costs of the unsuccessful application.

Key Facts

The Austrian Insolvency Code provides for the possibility to challenge certain disadvantageous transactions carried out by the debtor after material insolvency has occurred, especially if the creditor knew or should have known of its debtor's material insolvency. This risk of legal actions being contested is of particularly high relevance for shareholders who are also creditors of the debtor company, as the Austrian Supreme Court recently decided that shareholders' information rights would result in an increased level of due diligence.

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

Following the opening of insolvency proceedings, the insolvency receiver typically tries to enlarge the insolvency estate by asserting voidance claims. Legal acts that occurred within certain suspect periods prior to the opening of insolvency proceedings might be declared void. Creditors may mitigate certain avoidance risks by investigating the debtor's financial situation when conducting legal transactions.

Responsibility to investigate

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

schönherr journal www.schoenherr.eu 02/2017 S  cílem harmonizovat a  posílit ochranu proti odcizení obchodního tajemství na úrovni EU byla minulý rok přijata Směrnice Evropského parlamentu a  Rady (EU) 2016/943 ze dne 8. června 2016 o  ochraně nezveřejněného know-how a  obchodních informací (obchodního tajemství) před jejich neoprávněným získáním, využitím a zpřístupněním (dále jen „Směrnice“). V návaznosti na zavádění Směrnice do českého právního řádu dozná určitých změn dosud platná právní ochrana obchodního tajemství.

Reasoning behind the changes

In the two years that the "new" bankruptcy regime – the Bankruptcy Act of September 2015 (Stečajni zakon; the "BA") – has been in place, the number of pre-bankruptcy procedures initiated in Croatia has plummeted to only 273, with 58 restructuring plans being accepted. By comparison, under the previous pre-bankruptcy regime from 2012 to 2015, 8,262 pre-bankruptcy procedures were initiated, with 2,224 restructuring plans being reached.

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.