As part of its second stimulus package in response to the developing novel coronavirus pandemic announced on 22 March 2020, the Australian Government has extended a lifeline to individuals and businesses facing financial distress by way of temporary changes to the laws of insolvency. There are four key features of the changes.
1. Temporary changes to creditor's statutory demands laws
With the rampant spread of COVID-19 worldwide, there are increasing concerns as to the financial impact of the outbreak. With forced business closures a potential reality, it seems inevitable that the Australian economy is on its way to a recession.
It is therefore critical that directors of companies are fully aware of the extent of their duties and understand what they must do to comply.
China Lumena New Materials Corp (in provisional liquidation) [2020] HKCFI 338 (decision made on 23 January 2020 and reasons given on 4 March 2020)
This is the first reported scheme of arrangement in Hong Kong seeking to compromise debt governed by PRC law. Under the Gibbs Rule, a foreign composition does not discharge a debt unless it is discharged under the law governing the debt. In this case, the Hong Kong Court considered an exception to the Gibbs Rule and more generally the principles of sanctioning a scheme.
Background
On 4 February 2020, the Federal Court of Australia considered the circumstances in which it might be said that a provisional liquidator of a company ought not be appointed as the official liquidator because of an alleged "reasonable apprehension of bias". The issue was ventilated before the Court in the matter of Frisken (as receiver of Avant Garde Investments Pty Ltd v Cheema [2020] FCA 98.
Appointing a provisional liquidator
Entering into liquidation can be a scary time for any company and its officers, even one which chooses to do so voluntarily. However, the directors, shareholders and creditors of a company entering into liquidation do not have absolute discretion as to who they may appoint as the liquidator of the company. Together, the Corporations Act and common law principles of independence regulate the eligibility of a liquidator to be appointed to a company, and to remain in the appointment.
Overarching eligibility
What makes a contract an unprofitable contract which can be disclaimed by a trustee in bankruptcy without the leave of the Court under section 133(5A) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (Bankruptcy Act)? Can a litigation funding agreement be considered an unprofitable contract when the agreement provides for a significant funder's premium or charge of 80% (85% in the case of an appeal)?
Sit Kwong Lam v Petrolimex Singapore Pte. Ltd [2019] HKCA 1220案 (裁决日期：2019年11月1日)
But Ka Chon v Interactive Brokers LLC [2019] 5 HKC 238案 (裁决日期：2019年8月2日)
在Lasmos Limited v Southwest Pacific Bauxite (HK) Limited [2018] HKCFI 426一案中，当案件所涉债务是一项仲裁协议的标的时，公司法庭改变了原先在这种情况下如何裁定清盘程序的做法（被称为“Lasmos裁决”）。在近期的两起破产案件中，上诉法庭对Lasmos裁决发表了附带意见。
Lasmos案之前的裁决
上海华信国际集团有限公司（在中国大陆清算）[2020] HKCFI 167 (裁决日期：2020年1月13日)
这是香港法院首次向中国大陆法院指定的一家中国大陆公司的管理人发出承认令的案件。该案还考虑如果在送达第三债务人暂准令（garnishee order nisi）后，破产令在外国颁布，此时是否应将第三债务人暂准令转为绝对命令。
案件背景
上海华信国际集团有限公司（以下简称为“CEFC”）是一家在中国大陆注册成立的投资控股公司，是一家企业集团的一部分，该企业集团的业务包括资本融资、石油精炼和基础设施。 2019年11月，上海市第三中级人民法院（以下简称为“上海法院”）下令CEFC破产清算，并指定了联合管理人（以下简称为“管理人”）。
CEFC的资产包括对其在香港地区的子公司上海华信集团（香港）有限公司（以下简称为“香港子公司”）的重大债权，该子公司正在清算中。CEFC已就该债权提供债务证明。
CEFC Shanghai International Group Limited (in Liquidation in the Mainland of the People’s Republic of China) [2020] HKCFI 167 (date of judgement 13 January 2020)
This is the first case in which the Hong Kong Court granted a recognition order to administrators of a PRC company appointed by a PRC Court. The case also considered whether a garnishee order nisi should be made absolute if a foreign bankruptcy order is made after the service of the garnishee order nisi.
Background
Sit Kwong Lam v Petrolimex Singapore Pte. Ltd [2019] HKCA 1220 (date of judgment 1 November 2019)
But Ka Chon v Interactive Brokers LLC [2019] 5 HKC 238 (date of judgment 2 August 2019)
The Companies Court has changed the approach in which winding up proceedings are handled when the alleged debt is the subject of an arbitration agreement in the case of Lasmos Limited v Southwest Pacific Bauxite (HK) Limited [2018] HKCFI 426. In two recent bankruptcy cases, the Court of Appeal made obiter comments on the Lasmos approach.