The recent decision in Re The Liquidator of Shenzhen Everich Supply Chain Co, Ltd (in liquidation in the People’s Republic of China) [2020] HKCFI 965 reaffirms the willingness of the Hong Kong Companies Court (the “Companies Court”) to recognise the winding-up of a company in Mainland China and thereby grant recognition and assistance to liquidators appointed in the Mainland.
In The Joint and Several Provisional Liquidators of China Oil Gangran Energy Group Holdings Limited [2020] HKCFI 825, the Hong Kong Court continued a trend of recognising foreign soft-touch provisional liquidators.
Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic has affected businesses all over the world. Whilst directors will actually consider that their primary responsibility is to keep the business running during difficult times, it is equally important to bear in mind that this should be done in accordance with the law and via appropriate means. A director should always have regard to the company's financial status and avoid entering into transactions that are in breach of his/her fiduciary duties as director, especially when the company's solvency is open to question.
“As is well known, other than schemes of arrangement, Hong Kong has no legislation that provides for corporate debt restructuring or rehabilitation. This unsatisfactory state of affairs has been the subject of much invariably adverse comment for two decades now. It is brought into unforgiving focus by the economic problems that Covid-19 is causing.
(This article was published in the May 2020 Issue of Hong Kong Lawyer: http://www.hk-lawyer.org/sites/default/files/e-magazines/HKL-MAY-2020/viewer/desktop/index.html?doc=917CC81E9107138E6C05E7B46F3C9397#page/30)
(本文章发表于2020年5月的《香港律师》杂志上：http://www.hk-lawyer.org/sites/default/files/e-magazines/HKL-MAY-2020/viewer/desktop/index.html?doc=917CC81E9107138E6C05E7B46F3C9397#page/34)
法庭该如何处理就仅基于指称债务（其为某仲裁条款之标的事项）而提出的清盘呈请呢？仲裁条款与清盘呈请之间的相互作用，导致近期普通法司法管辖区中出现互相矛盾的判决。尽管普遍接受的是，清盘法律程序不具可仲裁性，因此不存在因仲裁而自动、强制性或非酌情地搁置对清盘法律程序，但当以酌情权决定涉及仲裁条款的清盘法律程序应否予以搁置或撤销时，不同普通法司法管辖区法院却采纳了不同的方案。具体而言，该等不同方案是：
Section 29 of the Bankruptcy Ordinance (Cap. 6) (BO) allows a trustee in bankruptcy to apply to the Courts for orders compelling disclosure of material documents and/or information of the bankrupt in order for the trustee to carry out his/her duties under the bankruptcy. For the authors’ previous article on Section 29, please see here.
Section 29 provides that:
Introduction
In the recent case of Re FDG Electric Vehicles Limited [2020] HKCFI 2931, the Court held that when the Hong Kong court recognises offshore provisional liquidation, there would not be an automatic stay of proceedings in Hong Kong.
簡介
法院最近在 Re FDG Electric Vehicles Limited [2020] HKCFI 2931 一案中裁定，即使在外地進 行的臨時清盤獲香港法院承認，在香港進行的法律程序也不會自動擱置。
在本案中，五龍電動車（集團）有限公司（「該公司」）在其成立地點百慕達被頒令臨時清 盤，其共同及各別臨時清盤人（「臨時清盤人」）向香港法院申請頒令承認及協助。法院須審 理以下兩個爭論點：
- 該命令是否應給予臨時清盤人權力，以控制該公司直接及間接擁有的所有附屬公司？
- 如應擱置在香港現有或預期針對該公司的法律程序，則應如何擱置？
外國清盤人的權力範圍
如法院承認外國的公司清盤程序，法院可准許外國清盤人接管該公司在香港的資產，包括（如 適用）在香港成立的公司的股份。