Hong Kong has not adopted into domestic legislation the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross Border Insolvency.

Unlike jurisdictions which have adopted the Model Law, e.g. the United Kingdom, an application to the Hong Kong Courts for recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings requires a balancing exercise of competing aims: assisting the foreign court conducting the main insolvency proceedings in achieving a universal distribution of assets, and ensuring that creditors seeking the Hong Kong Courts' assistance are treated fairly and equitably in enforcing their rights.

The true effects of the events of the last few days have yet to be seen. With the mainstream political parties acting like participants in a ‘Compose a Greek Tragedy’ competition, a government unlikely to exercise any meaningful executive functions until autumn (at least), the currency and financial markets in turmoil and the future uncertain on a range of factors, it is tempting to succumb to a condition of inaction whilst waiting to see how the cards fall.

The Australian government has announced a 'National Innovation and Science Agenda' to be introduced by the middle of 2017, which includes providing a defence to protect directors from liability for insolvent trading where restructuring advice is obtained in an attempt to turn around a company's financial position. The government has also released the Productivity Commission Report on 'Business Set-up, Transfer and Closure' which contains recommendations on how the defence will operate.

The High Court ruling in Schroder Exempt Property Unit Trust and another v Birmingham City Council [2014] EWHC 2207 provides helpful clarification on whether or not a landlord is liable  to pay business rates on an empty property following the liquidation of a tenant and the subsequent  disclaimer of the lease.

Background

On 22 October 2020, the UAE government made various changes to the UAE Bankruptcy Law*, including the concept of Emergency Financial Crisis (EFC). Subsequently, on 10 January 2021, the UAE Cabinet declared the existence of an EFC in the UAE. In this article, Partners Michael Morris and Keith Hutchison explore how this declaration may impact on debtors and creditors.

Emergency Financial Crisis

One of the key changes implemented was a power given to the UAE Cabinet to declare an EFC. An EFC is defined as:

It is imperative that companies in financial distress prioritise their continued existence and consider business rescue as an alternative to liquidation. Business rescue is a robust procedure that allows South African companies in financial distress or trading in insolvent circumstances to file for business rescue and with the assistance of a business rescue practitioner, reorganise and restructure the business with the aim of returning it to a more stable and profitable entity.

Prelude

India and the United Arab Emirates (‘UAE’) have witnessed dynamic bilateral relations in the recent past. Leadership of both countries have endeavoured to bolster ties of the two economies which has aligned India to achieve its insatiable ambition of emerging as a USD 5 trillion economy.

上周，曾在新加坡证券交易所有限公司（“新交所”）上市的Otto Marine有限公司（以下简称“Otto Marine”）提出申请将公司提交司法托管（“司法托管申请”）并请求任命临时司法管理人。

该公司系总部为新加坡的Otto Marine集团的核心成员，Otto Marine集团拥有约70家子公司，联营公司和间接子公司，在全球拥有622名员工。 Otto Marine集团从事投资控股，船舶建造，维修和服务，船舶租赁和租赁以及离岸服务业务。 Otto Marine的独任董事暨实际股东是马来西亚大亨拿督斯里丘志肖。

司法托管申请发生于2015年约1.83亿美元的亏损以及2016年10月自新加坡证券交易所自愿退市之后。根据该公司截至2017年12月31日的管理账目初稿，本财政年度累计录得亏损约8100万美元。 在支持司法托管申请的法院文件中，该公司估计总负债约为8.77亿美元，并宣称自己无力偿还债务，并援引大华银行提交的清盘申请和各种未决执行申请等事宜。

根据法庭文件，拿督斯里丘志肖本人似乎是该公司最大的单一债权人，其本人或其附属公司享有2.08亿美元债权。

Written by Ashmi Mohan at Clasis Law

In its recent judgment of Kirusa Software Private Ltd. vs. Mobilox Innovations Private Ltd. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) 6 of 2017, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal of India (“Appellate Tribunal”) has adjudicated upon the issue as to what does “dispute” and “existence of dispute” mean for the purpose of determination of a petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”).

On 1 September 2016, the Korean Court issued orders commencing rehabilitation proceedings for Hanjin and staying proceedings against it and its assets (Korean Orders).

The purpose of the Korean proceeding is to rehabilitate the insolvent debtor company, Hanjin, by restructuring its debts. The debts are restructured according to a rehabilitation plan approved by the creditors and the Korean Court. The aim is to protect Hanjin while it trades out of its debt.