In Bespark Technologies Engineering Ltd v JV Fitness Ltd the High Court recently took the opportunity to remind liquidators of their duty to give full and frank disclosure when making an ex parte (without notice) application to the court.(1) A failure to do so could have serious consequences, including a refusal to approve the appointment of a liquidator or an order for his or her removal. The duty to be full and frank applies to all ex parte applications, so there are general lessons to be learned.

In a precedent-setting decision delivered on 8 February 2018, the Hong Kong Court of First Instance has granted a recognition order in favour of foreign liquidators appointed in an insolvent liquidation commenced by a shareholders' resolution.

Experienced insolvency practitioners in Hong Kong are all familiar with Hong Kong Court of Appeal's decision of 1 March 2006 in the liquidation of Legend International Resorts Limited1.

In Beijing Tong Gang Da Sheng Trade Co., Ltd (as assignee of Greater Beijing Region Expressways Limited) v Allen & Overy & Anor, FACV 2, 3, 4 and 5 of 2016, the Court of Final Appeal held that the addition or substitution of a party to an action amounts to a “new claim”, as defined in section 35(2) of the Limitation Ordinance (Cap 347)) and would not therefore be permitted after the relevant limitation period had expired, unless it came within the rules of court as required under Section 35(3) and (5) of the Limitation Ordinance (Cap 347).

The Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Ordinance 2016 (CAP 32) (the “Amendment Ordinance”) came into force on 13 February 2017. One of the key objectives of the Amendment Ordinance is to increase protection of creditors. Under the Amendment Ordinance, liquidators are given the avoidance power to set aside transactions at an undervalue and unfair preferences. 

Rian Matthews and Kate Ballantine-Dykes from Baker McKenzie have published an article entitled “Common law to the rescue: bridging gaps in international and domestic restructuring and insolvency regimes” in Corporate Rescue and Insolvency.

• Introduction
• Application for permission to appeal

In Re Hin-Pro International Logistics Ltd, CACV 54/2016, the Court of Appeal upheld the Court of First Instance (CFI) decision that the courtdoes have jurisdiction to grant leave to amend a creditor’s winding-up petition, to include debts accruedafter its presentation. The company had been granted leave to appeal the CFI decision to enable the Court of Appeal to consider whether the rule in Eshelby v Federated European Bank Ltd [1932] 1 KB 254 (the Eshelby Rule), still applied.

This is the second in a series of articles highlighting the changes to be brought in by the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Ordinance 2016 (Amendment Ordinance), which was gazetted on 3 June 2016 and will come into effect on a date to be appointed by the Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury.

In The Joint Provisional Liquidators of BJB Career Education Company Limited (In Provisional Liquidation) v Xu Zhendong¹, the Court of First Instance considered the Hong Kong courts' common law powers to recognise and assist foreign courts and insolvency practitioners overseeing non-Hong Kong insolvency proceedings.

The questions considered by the court were: