On March 14, 2018 the European Commission presented the Second Progress Report on the reduction of non-performing loans (“NPLs”). The report comprises a memo and a factsheet, whose versions in English can be obtained on the website of the European Commission, which also distributed a press release (English version).

El pasado 28 de febrero la Comisión Europea publicó el Borrador de Acuerdo sobre la retirada del Reino Unido de la Unión Europea (“UE”).

On February 28 last the European Commission published the Draft Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union (“EU”).

Garrigues detected that there was no clear guideline that allowed notaries to issue another enforceable copy of the mortgage deed to funds that had acquired NPLs.

The Directorate-General of Registries and Notaries (Dirección General de los Registros y del Notariado or DGRN) has issued an important ruling, which will enable international investors acquiring NPLs (non-performing loans) from Spanish financial institutions to speed up their recovery significantly, especially if the debts are secured with a mortgage guarantee.

FEBRUARY 2018 • SUMMARY v NEW LEGISLATION NOTIONAL PYRAMID GARRIGUES ARCHIVES CURRENT NEWS FEBRUARY 2018 - SPECIAL Nº50 (2009 - 2018) WHAT IS THE CURRENT SITUATION OF NPLs IN THE EUROPEAN UNION?

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

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).