Re Kaoru Takamatsu – [2019] HKCFI 802 (date of judgment 25 March 2019)

For the first time the Hong Kong Court has recognised a Japanese winding up proceeding and granted assistance to a bankruptcy trustee appointed by the Japanese Court.

Background

On 1 March 2018, the District Court of Tokyo, Twentieth Civil Division (“Tokyo Court”) ordered Japan Life Co, Ltd (“Japan Life”) to be wound up and appointed Mr Kaoru Takamatsu as trustee in bankruptcy.

有关Kaoru Takamatsu – [2019] HKCFI 802一案 (判决日期2019年3月25日)

香港法庭首次认可日本清盘程序，并向日本法庭委任的破产管理人提供援助。

背景介绍

于2018年3月1日，东京地区裁判法院民事诉讼第20支部向Japan Life Co, Ltd (以下简称“Japan Life”) 颁发清盘令，并委任Kaoru Takamatsu先生为破产管理人。

Takamatsu先生需要获取Japan Life在瑞穗银行及汇丰银行的香港分行所持有的银行账户记录。于是，Takamatsu先生寻求香港法庭的认可和援助，以获得该账户的记录，并处理Japan Life在香港的相关事务。

判定和原则

In the recent case of 1st Fleet Pty Ltd (in liquidation), the Court clarified the information disclosure obligations of external administrators in the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) (IPSC) and Insolvency Practice Rules (Corporations) 2016 (Rules).

There is only a short time period for compliance, and there can be cost consequences for non compliance.

Under the 1992 ISDA Master Agreement, following an event of default, there is either an automatic termination or the non-defaulting party can serve a notice designating an Early Termination Date. There then has to be a determination by the non-defaulting party of the compensation that is owed by one party or the other. This is done by closing out the transactions, which involves determining gains or losses in replacing or providing the economic equivalent of the terminated transactions. Once that is done, a statement is served setting out the calculations.

Welcome to this month's edition of our commercial and tech update, covering a wide range of topics from Facebook's lacklustre approach in dealing with IP infringement to further confirmation on the Courts' approach to liquidated damages.

(Mis)Adventures in advertising

In business it is not uncommon for a director of a company to be owed money by that company.

If the commercial relationship breaks down, the director may think it is an option to serve a creditor’s statutory demand on the debtor company.

However, recent court decisions demonstrate that issuing a creditor’s statutory demand is not a sure fire method of obtaining payment where the director is owed the debt personally or is a director of both the creditor and debtor companies.

Cases where statutory demands have been successfully challenged

The Personal Properties Securities Register (PPSR) will be seven years old on 30 January 2019; accordingly, security interests with seven year registration periods will, unless renewed, expire from 30 January 2019.

The seven year security interest is the most common registration period and is the maximum period of registration for goods with a serial number (such as motor vehicles). According to the Australian Financial Security Authority, an estimated 115,239 registrations will expire in January 2019.

Welcome to the inaugural edition of 'Going concerns', in which we strive to bring you the latest updates on restructuring and insolvency law. For this issue, we focus on Singapore and provide:

In the recent court decision of Trenfield v HAG Import Corporation (Australia) Pty Ltd [2018] QDC 107, the liquidators recovered unfair preferences from a retention of title creditor who argued it was a secured creditor.

The issues

In the recent decision of Heavy Plant Leasing [2018] NSWSC 707, a creditor successfully defended an unfair preference claim by establishing it did not have reasonable grounds to suspect the insolvency of the debtor company, who was a subcontractor in the earth moving business.

The most common way of defending a liquidator’s unfair preferences claim is to rely upon section 588FG(2) of the Corporations Act 2001(Cth); commonly called the ‘good faith defence’.