In this issue:

Welcome to our corporate and commercial disputes update, a new bi-annual publication in which we summarise some of the most significant cases over the last six months or so in the corporate and commercial dispute resolution market:

On 14 May 2021, the Government of HKSAR and the Supreme People's Court signed the "Record of Meeting of the Supreme People's Court and the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region on Mutual Recognition of and Assistance to Bankruptcy (Insolvency) Proceedings between the Courts of the Mainland and of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" which effects a cooperation mechanism for Hong Kong liquidators and Mainland administrators to seek mutual recognition and assistance.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led successful resolution applicants to seek withdrawals of, or modifications to, approved resolution plans. This article examines the Supreme Court’s recent judgment on claims of force majeure in the resolution process of Amtek Auto.

The Part 26A Restructuring Plans (the "Plans") proposed by each of Virgin Active Holdings, Virgin Active Limited and Virgin Active Health Clubs Limited (the "Plan Companies") have been sanctioned by the court. This decision has been eagerly anticipated by the restructuring and insolvency market, struggling tenants and the beleaguered landlord community.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) was enacted to enable corporate insolvency resolution of financially stressed corporate debtors in a time bound manner, so as to maximise the value of their assets. The decision to rehabilitate or liquidate a corporate debtor lies with the committee of creditors (Committee), comprising the corporate debtor’s financial creditors. The Code allows the Committee sufficient freedom and flexibility to explore, negotiate and, subsequently, choose the most suitable option for the corporate debtor.

Introduction

In R (on the application of KBR, Inc) (Appellant) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office (Respondent) [2021] UKSC 2¹ the Supreme Court held that the Serious Fraud Office ("SFO") may not compel a foreign company to produce documents held overseas under section 2(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 ("CJA 1987").

In this issue:

Introduction

Towards the end of 2020, while businesses were reeling from the challenges of grappling with a global pandemic, the end of the Brexit transition period and LIBOR transition, the Law Commission published a paper analysing the current law underlying intermediated securities - Intermediated securities: who owns your shares? A Scoping Paper.

China Huiyuan Juice Group Limited [2020] HKCFI 2940 (date of decision: 19 November 2020)

The Hong Kong courts have developed over time three core requirements by reference to which the court assesses whether or not a good reason for making a winding-up-order against a foreign incorporated company in Hong Kong has been demonstrated.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd [2020] UKSC 31 of 15 July 2020 provided much needed clarity on the scope of the rule against “reflective loss”.