A bankruptcy petition was dismissed on the application of the debtor, who claimed that a guarantee document was not a valid deed, the transaction which was purported to be guaranteed was a sham and that the debtor’s signature had been forged. Whilst the court accepted that there was a substantial dispute as regards the transaction (payment of fees of US$500 billion!) and that the form of guarantee was invalid, as no evidence had been called to show that the debtor’s signature had been forged, the bankruptcy petition hearing was not the right forum to decide the matter.

The long running question of whether a contractual dispute relating to a breach of a construction contract can be the subject of Adjudication, if one of the parties is in Liquidation, and there are cross claims for insolvency set off was settled by The Supreme Court. Needless to say the two parties both claimed breach of contract and damages. The contract allowed for a dispute to be resolved by Arbitration which the sub-contractor Bresco wished to pursue. This was opposed on the basis of incompatibility between insolvency set-off, and an argument that the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction.

In this case the court was asked to allow the convening of a meeting of creditors to consider and approve a scheme of arrangement by telephone and video conference in view of the Covid-19 pandemic. The meeting was proposed to take place on 20 July 2020 when there was likely to be an easing of the lockdown measure. The court approved the application and made the necessary order.

A similar order was made in a more recent case: Re ColourOz Investment 2 LLC and other companies.

The court held in this case that a costs order in favour of the debtor, in respect of a discontinued bankruptcy petition for the same debt, due to the petitioner, could be set off against the sums due in respect of a second bankruptcy petition brought against the debtor by the same petitioner. The debtor had argued that the petition should be stayed until the previous costs order had been paid.

The case concerned an insolvency practice which had been placed into compulsory liquidation. The Applicants had been appointed liquidators. However, between the presentation of the petition and the winding up order, the assets of the insolvency practice were transferred to another practice, resulting in a claim under section 127 IA86 to declare the transfer void. In addition, the liquidators sought to have transferred to themselves the insolvency cases of the two practitioners of the former practice. The application was by way of the block transfer procedure.

Re Patrick Cowley and Lui Yee Man, Joint and Several Liquidators of the Company [2020] HKCFI 922(date of judgment: 27 May 2020)

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act received royal assent on 25 June 2020 and comes into force immediately.

The Act introduces a range of new corporate restructuring tools and suspends, temporarily, parts of the existing insolvency regime. The purpose of this note is to update you on two key aspects of the Act: the moratorium on legal action and the temporary changes in relation to statutory demands and winding-up petitions.

Moratorium on legal action

Clearly there are some major economic challenges ahead. Many businesses may be able to withstand the challenges ahead but it may very well be that their trading counterparties (whether suppliers, customers or other stakeholders) will not. Whilst these times can represent an opportunity for some, such as potential acquirers (whether of businesses, assets or distressed debt), in most cases, the climate represents a threat to businesses.

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the "Bill") was published on 20 May 2020. The Bill introduces a new type of ‘moratorium’ whereby eligible companies can take 40 days to restructure without the threat of enforcement action from creditors.

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill 2019-21 (the “Bill”) published on 20 May 2020, had its third reading on 3 June 2020. This briefing focuses on the proposed changes to shareholder meetings and Companies House filing deadlines. For the purposes of this briefing, the “Relevant Period” began on 26 March 2020 and ends on 30 September 2020.

1. Flexibility for holding shareholder’s meetings.