Where a shareholder has redeemed his shareholding following a failed investment without objection some months prior to the initiation of a voluntary liquidation, the Court will not permit him to use the statutory deferral provisions relating to voluntary liquidations for an abusive or improper purpose. This includes using such proceedings as leverage to exert undue pressure in proposed claims against the company or directors.
Passing the Golden Thread through the Eye of a Needle In Singularis 1 , as is well known, the Privy Council Board considered the doctrine of modified universalism whereby, broadly speaking, a court will give such assistance as it can to foreign insolvency proceedings, as is consistent with local law and local public policy, so as to ensure that a company's assets are distributed under a single system; and held by a majority that there is a common law power to assist a foreign insolvency, although the power could not be used to enable foreign liquidators to do something that they could not d
Introduction
In the recent case of Re Grand Peace Group Holdings Ltd [2021] HKCFI 2361, which concerns the winding-up of a foreign incorporated listed company, the Court of First Instance revisited the 2nd core requirement and considered whether the possibility of the court making an order to compel the directors of the company to execute the documents necessary for the liquidators to take control of the company’s BVI subsidiaries would be sufficient to be considered as a real possibility of benefit to the petitioner.
On 10 September 2021, Chief Justice Smellie QC in Re Premier Assurance Group SPC Ltd. (in Official Liquidation) sanctioned a streamlined adjudication process proposed by the joint official liquidators ("JOLs") of Premier Assurance Group SPC Ltd (in Official Liquidation) (the "Company"), circumventing the requirement for thousands of participants to lodge separate proofs of debt in an insolvent liquidation.
The Channel Islands of Guernsey and Jersey did not introduce emergency insolvency legislation as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic and do not presently have measures equivalent to those found in the UK’s Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act, 2020 (“CIGA”).
簡介
我們於7月的清盤及重組文章中，介紹了中國最高人民法院（「最高人民法院」）與香港律政司司長於2021年5月14日簽署《最高人民法院與香港特別行政區政府關於內地與香港特別行政區法院相互認可和協助破產程序的會談紀要》（「合作機制」），當中訂明了香港法院與深圳、上海及廈門三個試點地區的中級人民法院相互認可破產的程序和人員安排的具體程序。
Introduction
Last month, leading litigation funder and asset management firm Burford posed questions on major legal developments in the offshore markets over the past 18 months and economic trends that will play out in the markets post-pandemic to leading litigators, insolvency practitioners and financial professionals in the region.
When the Petitioner issued the petition to wind up the Company on 12 January 2021, the Company was already subject to another winding up petition in HCCW 410/2019 and the Petitioner was aware of the first petition. The Court reiterated that a creditor should not issue a petition if a petition has already been issued against the relevant debtor company. The Petitioner argued that there are exceptional circumstances, which justified the second petition: Re China Greenfresh Group Co Ltd [2021] HKCFI 36. It was said that the progress of the first petition was dilatory.
In today's global economy, cross-border structures, frequently including an offshore entity, have become familiar to office holders around the world.
However, the territorial limits of a court’s powers can mean that such structures present obstacles with which office holders attempting to conduct an orderly and efficient winding up of a debtor's affairs need to familiarise themselves.
The principle of modified universalism mandates that, within the constraints of public policy, courts should co-operate across jurisdictions.