On 7 May 2025, the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) handed down a judgment providing useful guidance on the meaning of “fraudulent trading” within s.213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (Insolvency Act) and how the test in s.32(1) of the Limitation Act 1980 (Limitation Act) operates, in Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) v Tradition Financial Services Ltd [2025] UKSC 18 (Bilta). In this article, we give a brief summary of the facts, issues and rulings in the judgment and its practical implications for Hong Kong’s corporate insolvency regime.
Background
Directors beware!
Following the liquidation order from the Hong Kong High Court on January 29, 2024, against China Evergrande Group Corporation, on September 12, 2024, China Evergrande Group filed a liquidation petition for its wholly owned subsidiary, CEG Holdings (BVI) Limited, which has been scheduled a hearing on February 17, 2025. In the liquidation process of a Hong Kong company, the maintenance and realisation of the company's assets and the return of the value to its creditors and other stakeholders are key concerns.
引言
继2024年1月29日香港高等法院向中国恒大集团公司发出清盘令后，2024年9月12日，中国恒大集团又向香港高等法院提呈针对其直接全资附属公司CEG Holdings (BVI) Limited的清盘呈请，并定于2025年2月17日举行清盘呈请聆讯。在香港公司清盘程序中，维护及变现公司资产，向公司债权人及其他持份者返还价值为重要关切。明确香港公司清盘令下公司在大陆境内财产的处置规则和程序，对于减少商业活动中的不确定性和风险，增强市场主体信心有重要意义。
一、香港高等法院作出清盘令的法律后果
根据《公司（清盘及杂项条文）条例》（简称《清盘条例》）第178条规定，若公司欠下债权人已到期应支付的款项相等于或超过1万美元债务的，任何一名或多名债权人、任何一名或多名分担人（指在公司清盘时有法律责任分担提供公司资产的人）或任何分担人的破产案受托人或遗产代理人可一起或分别提出清盘呈请，清盘令作出后有如下主要法律后果：
1. 诉讼搁置
根据《公司（清盘及杂项条文）条例》（简称《清盘条例》）第186条规定，当已有清盘令作出或已委托一名临时清盘人，除非获得法院许可，否则不得针对公司进行或展开任何诉讼或法律程序，而获法院许可者须在符合法院所施加的条款下进行或展开该等诉讼或法律程序，但涉及国家安全的案件除外。
Parkside’s Derek J Y Chan, instructed by Tanner De Witt, acted for the successful Plaintiffs, China City Construction (International) Co., Limited (In Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation) and Dingway Investment Limited (In Compulsory Liquidation), both acting through their liquidators, in obtaining an anti-suit injunction (“ASI”) to restrain China City Construction & Development Co., (HK) Limited from continuing proceedings (“the Beijing proceedings”) it had commenced in the People
The Court of Appeal of England and Wales (“EWCA”) recently handed down its decision in Servis-Terminal LLC v Valeriy Ernestovich Drelle [2025] EWCA Civ 62 clarifying that, as a matter of English law, an “unrecognised” foreign judgment cannot be relied upon as a basis to commence insolvency proceedings.
Section 182 of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap. 32) (“CWUMPO”) renders the disposition of a company’s property after the presentation of a winding-up petition against it void, subject to any validation order granted by the court. This provision serves to preserve the company’s assets at the date of the winding-up petition for the general benefit of creditors, and to ensure that the statutory scheme of pari passu distribution can be implemented.
Cram-across: Sino-Ocean Restructuring Plan Makes Waves
The evolution of the English RP continues to push the jurisdictional envelope.
Following the High Court’s landmark case in 2023 where cryptocurrency was recognised by the Court as property and could form a subject matter of a trust, the High Court recently further clarified the trust relationship between exchanges and their customers. Non-Consenting Customers (NCCs) who did not accept the 2018 Terms and Conditions (T&C) were found to have a proprietary interest in their assets, giving them priority in the liquidation process. Conversely, customers who had agreed to the T&Cs were treated as unsecured creditors.
On 23 October 2024, Deputy High Court Judge Le Pichon of the Court of First Instance in the High Court of the Hong Kong SAR granted recognition and assistance to Chan Ho Yin (also known as Michael Chan) (“Mr Chan“) of Kroll (HK) Ltd and Elaine Hanrahan (“Ms Hanrahan“), the joint official liquidators of Bull’s-Eye Limited (“Bull’s-Eye”) following a letter of request issued by the British Virgin Islands (“BVI”) Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court.