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.

Introduction

Before the landmark decision of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal in Guy Kwok-Hung Lam v Tor Asia Credit Master Fund LP [2023] HKCFA 9 (“ReGuy Lam”), there had been a long-standing debate over the impact, if any, of an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of a foreign court (“EJC”) on the presentation of bankruptcy / winding-up petitions.

Tanner De Witt acted for Chan Ho Yin (also known as Michael Chan) of Kroll (HK) Ltd and Elaine Hanrahan, the Joint Liquidators of Bull’s-Eye Limited (in Liquidation) (“BEL”) which was wound up in the BVI on 15 January 2024. BEL is a company connected to Hua Han Health Industry Holdings Limited (formerly listed on Main Board of the HKEx, stock code 587) (“Hua Han”). Michael Chan is also a one of the joint and several liquidators of Hua Han. BEL held roughly 30% shares in Hua Han and its sole shareholders and directors were the founders of Hua Han.

Summary

The Hong Kong Government received 37 submissions from the public in July 2024 regarding the Construction Industry Security of Payment Bill (“Bill”) and held discussions with deputations from different stakeholders at a LegCo meeting on 16 July 2024.

On 15 May 2024, the Bermuda Court granted an order striking out a winding-up petition (the “Petition”), setting aside an earlier order appointing joint provisional liquidators (“JPLs”), and discharging the JPLs appointed over New Sparkle Roll International Group Limited (the “Company”), a Bermuda company listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. The Company’s new board of directors (the “New Board”) was represented by Conyers.

Background

Key takeaways

When a company is in financial distress, directors face difficult choices. Should they trade on to try to “trade out” of the company’s financial difficulties or should they file for insolvency? If they act too soon, will creditors complain that they should have done more to save the business? A recent English High Court case raises the prospect of directors potentially being held to account for decisions that “merely postpone the inevitable.”

Notwithstanding that the requisite statutory majority was obtained in the relevant creditors’ scheme meeting, the Hong Kong Companies Court refused to sanction a scheme of arrangement propounded by a company that professed to be insolvent in a recent judgment [2024] HKCFI 2216.

If the agreement between a creditor and debtor refers disputes to arbitration, what limits should be placed on the creditor to pursue winding-up proceedings based on an unpaid debt under that agreement? Should a court simply stay the winding-up proceedings to allow the debt to be disputed in arbitration?

Our latest briefing compares recent developments in the APAC restructuring market with those in the UK. Despite APAC's and the UK's divergent monetary policy and growth forecasts, we find that restructuring markets in both regions are seeing very similar themes: