This article examines the NCLT and NCLAT’s power to exercise contempt jurisdiction under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and the inconsistent approach taken by different benches.

Although the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) was initially hailed as a welcome reform that would enable timebound and effective insolvency resolution, its tenure has been fraught with issues and uncertainty. One of the issues that remains open is the power to punish for contempt under the Code.

When an Event of Default is "continuing" is not defined or addressed in the ISDA Master Agreement. Until now it does not appear to have been expressly considered in case law either.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was enacted, amongst others, to facilitate timely insolvency resolution. While the Supreme Court has always upheld the sanctity of timelines under the Code for corporate insolvency resolution, it has held the prescribed timelines for actions prior to the commencement of the corporate insolvency process as merely directory. This article explores the impact of such decisions on the proceedings under the Code which already suffer from inordinate delays.

As the tile suggests the state of recognition and assistance jurisprudence & practice in Hong Kong is less than clear. This follows the recent (mostly) conflicting 1st instance decisions of Up Energy and Global Brands. Here are my views about (i) what I believe is settled; (ii) the points of judicial difference; and (iii) what remains unclear.

Settled

The Supreme Court has handed down its long-awaited judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA [2022] UKSC 25.

Basic facts

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was enacted to facilitate insolvency resolution in a timebound manner, and maximise value realisation for stakeholders. Although it has been amended 6 times since its notification, issues remain. As the Legislature appears set to amend the Code once again, this article examines stakeholders’ issues and explores the issues the amendments may address.

In the latest edition of Going concerns, Stephenson Harwood's restructuring and insolvency team covers the use of lock-up agreements in schemes of arrangements, and the developments in Singapore and Hong Kong as regards recognition of foreign insolvencies. Our final article is a must-read for lenders, discussing the circumstances under which security may be unwound as a undervalued transaction.

Content

Hong Kong’s insolvency regime is based mainly on that of the United Kingdom. The legislation concerning corporate insolvency is contained largely in the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap 32) (“CWUMPO”) and the Companies (Winding-up) Rules. The corporate insolvency and winding up provisions in the legislation are broadly based on the Companies Act 1929 and the Companies Act 1948 of the UK. The last major amendment of those provisions was made in 2016. 

A guide to restructuring and insolvency issues and procedures in Hong Kong

Contents

Seahawk China Dynamic Fund [2022] HKCFI 1994 (date of reasons for decision: 4 July 2022)

Introduction

In the matter of an application for recognition and assistance by the provisional liquidator of Global Brands Group Holding Limited (in liquidation) [2022] HKCFI 1789 (date of decision: 23 June 2022)

The Hong Kong Court has recently granted recognition and assistance to the Bermuda provisional liquidator of Global Brands Group Holding Limited (in liquidation) (Global Brands / Company). Stephenson Harwood acted for the provisional liquidator.