The recent decision of Mr Justice Harris in Nuoxi Capital Ltd v Peking University Founder Group Co Ltd [2021] HKCFI 3817 shows the tension between the Hong Kong’s courts willingness to recognise foreign insolvency proceedings and the contractual rights of creditors who sought to enforce exclusive jurisdiction clauses in favour of Hong Kong.
A comparison of the key differences between Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act.
Blakes and Blakes Business Class communications are intended for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice or an opinion on any issue. We would be pleased to provide additional details or advice about specific situations if desired.
In recent years, there has been an increasing trend for different creditors to issue multiple petitions against the same debtor company. This may be due to the large number of listed companies in Hong Kong encountering financial difficulties during this period of economic downturn, or simply a lack of knowledge of the law in this area.
In May 2021, we published an article, Milestone in Hong Kong-Mainland China cross border insolvency: Mutual recognition of and assistance to Insolvency Proceedings between Hong Kong and Mainland China, which highlighted the key features of the cooperation mechanism in relation to Hong Kong-Mainland China cross border insolvency set out in the Record of Meeting of the Supreme Peopl
On 14 May 2021, Hong Kong’s Secretary for Justice and the Vice-President of the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) signed a record of meeting concerning mutual recognition of and assistance to insolvency proceedings between the courts of Mainland China and Hong Kong (Record of Meeting), which signifies the consensus on the mutual recognition of and assistance to insolvency proceedings between the two jurisdictions in accordance with the principle of reciprocity and with a view to promoting closer cross-border judicial cooperation on insolvency matters.
On 14 May 2021, the Secretary for Justice, Ms Teresa Cheng, SC, and Vice-president of the Supreme People's Court (SPC), Mr Yang Wanming, signed a record of meeting concerning mutual recognition of and assistance in relation to insolvency proceedings between the courts of the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR).
Although not a new concept, use of the reverse vesting order (RVO) structure to effect distressed M&A transactions in proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada) (CCAA) has quickly gained popularity in Canada over the last year. At its core, an RVO transaction involves a transfer of unwanted assets and liabilities — the “bad assets” — out of a distressed company into a newly established non-operating subsidiary, leaving the distressed business entity with only the “good assets” left to be acquired.
The recent Court of First Instance decision in Li Yiqing v Lamtex Holdings Limited [2021] HKCFI 622 (11 March 2021) is a landmark decision in cross-border insolvency law in Hong Kong, in which the Court held that when it is considering the recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings, regard should not simply be had to the place of incorporation of the relevant company, but that in a departure from previous practice, the location of the company’s centre of main interest (COMI) is also a factor.
Le 1er avril 2021, la Cour suprême du Canada a rejeté la demande d’autorisation d’appel de la décision de la Cour d’appel du Québec dans l’affaire Séquestre de Media5 Corporation, 2020 QCCA 943. Par conséquent, les tribunaux du Québec ont maintenant confirmation de la marche à suivre pour la nomination de séquestres nationaux à la demande des créanciers garantis.
Le 20 juillet 2020, la Cour d’appel du Québec annulait la décision rendue par la Cour supérieure et confirmait les principes suivants :
On April 1st, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the application for leave to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal of Québec in Séquestre de Media5 Corporation, 2020 QCCA 943. As a result, Quebec courts now have clarity regarding their ability to appoint national receivers for secured creditors.
On July 20, 2020, the Court of Appeal overturned the lower court’s decision and confirmed the following principles: