In recent years, it has become increasingly common for companies seeking to avoid an immediate winding-up order, particularly listed companies, to pray in aid of alleged efforts to restructure their debts in a bid to obtain adjournments of a winding-up petition. All too often, these valiant attempts fail: see Re Chase On Development Limited [2020] HKCFI 629, Re SMI Holdings Group Limited [2020] HKCFI 824 and Re REXLot Holdings Ltd [2020] HKCFI 2212 to name a few.
In the landmark case of Re China Huiyuan Juice Group Limited [2020] HKCFI 2940, Mr Justice Harris recalibrated the Hong Kong winding-up jurisdiction and its application to an offshore incorporated, Hong Kong-listed entity.
In particular, the decision explains why the Hong Kong court may be unable to wind-up an offshore incorporated, Hong Kong-listed company where all of the company’s operating assets are in the Mainland.
The Material Facts
In the recent decision of Polyline Development Ltd v Ching Lin Chun and Others [2021] HKCFI 483, Mr Recorder Manzoni SC struck out the Plaintiff’s statement of claim and action on a number of grounds. At para. 9 of the judgment, the learned Recorder highlighted the length of the submissions and evidence put forward by the parties, before remarking that “it may be thought that if such voluminous material is necessary in order to persuade the court that the claim is obviously unsustainable, the application is somewhat ambitious”
Hot on the heels of a trio of decisions concerning offshore provisional liquidation, which opened a new and commendable era for Hong Kong’s cross-border insolvency regime (see https://dvc.hk/en/news/cases-detail/heralding-a-new-and-healthy-era-of-cross-border-insolvency-recognition-in-hong-kong-re-fdg-electric-vehicles-ltd-re-
Selección de las principales resoluciones en materia de reestructuraciones e insolvencias.
Suspensión de la junta general extraordinaria hasta la designación y aceptación del cargo por la administración concursal
Auto del Juzgado de lo Mercantil núm. 3 de Sevilla de 26 de febrero de 2021 (asunto “Abengoa”)
Selection of the main restructuring and insolvency judgments.
Suspension of special shareholders’ meeting until insolvency receiver’s appointment and acceptance of that appointment
Decision by Seville Commercial Court No 3 on February 26, 2021 (“Abengoa” case)
On January 22, 2021 Madrid's commercial court judges approved a set of agreed procedures for handling insolvency proceedings in which liquidation is requested together with the insolvency order, as well as a number of criteria for transfers of productive units in these and other insolvency processes.
El 22 de enero de 2021, los jueces mercantiles de Madrid aprobaron un conjunto de acuerdos para la tramitación de procedimientos de insolvencia en los que se solicita la liquidación junto a la declaración de concurso, así como una serie de criterios para la enajenación de unidades productivas en estos y otros procesos concursales.
El impacto sostenido en la actividad económica que está teniendo la pandemia COVID-19 ha llevado al Gobierno, por un lado, a adoptar una serie de medidas destinadas a reforzar la liquidez y solvencia de las empresas y, por otro, a extender una vez más algunas de las medidas en el ámbito de la Administración de Justicia que se habían adoptado en el marco del Real Decreto-ley 16/2020, de 28 de abril, posteriormente confirmadas en la Ley 3/2020, de 18 de septiembre, así como en el Real Decreto-Ley 34/2020, de 17 de noviembre.
Through a trio of decisions, Mr Justice Harris has opened a new and commendable era for Hong Kong’s cross-border insolvency regime. The position under this new era is in brief thus:
First, the Hong Kong court is likely to use the debtor’s centre of main interests (“COMI”) as a yardstick to determine eligibility for recognition and assistance.