Section 42 of the Bankruptcy Ordinance (Cap. 6) (“BO”) provides that where a person is adjudged bankrupt, any disposition of property made by that person from the date of presentation of the bankruptcy petition is void unless made with the consent of the Court or unless subsequently ratified by the Court. The purpose of this section is to prevent the improper dissipation of the bankrupt’s assets once a bankruptcy petition is filed and to protect the principle of pari passu distribution.

Case: The joint administrators of African Minerals Limited (in administration) v Madison Pacific Trust Limited and Shangdong Steel Hong Kong Zengli Limited (HCMP 865 of 2015)

In the unusual case of Albert Edward Rodrigues v Associacao Portuguesa de Socorrous Mutuos (in liquidation) (HCMP 1391/2014), the Hong Kong Court of First Instance ordered a permanent stay of a company’s creditors’ voluntary winding up which has technically been going for 25 years, and in so doing reminded us of the applicable principles and the fact sensitive nature of such applications.

Background

Section 30A(1) of the Bankruptcy Ordinance (Cap. 6) (the “BO”), provides that the bankruptcy period, for a person who has been adjudged bankrupt for the first time, runs for four years. However, section 30A(4) of the BO provides eight grounds upon which the Court, on the application of the trustee in bankruptcy or a creditor, can order the suspension of a bankruptcy period – in effect lengthening the period of bankruptcy.

Alstom v Insigma, the (in)famous SIAC arbitration administered under ICC rules, was recently up for yet another round of judicial sparring following years of proceedings in several fora, which left Alstom Technology Limited (“Alstom”) with a HK$261 million award but limited assets against which to execute.

Under Hong Kong law, the courts’ jurisdiction is ordinarily territorial in nature. A plaintiff or applicant has to obtain permission (“leave”) of the court before it can validly serve a writ or other document initiating a legal action on a defendant or respondent located outside Hong Kong. For actions begun by writ, the procedures and criteria for applications for leave in this respect are set out under Order 11 of the Rules of the High Court (“RHC”).

Hong Kong Court records available publicly today show that a Petition was presented last Friday to wind up O.W. Bunker China Ltd (a Hong Kong company).  The records indicate that the Winding-up Petition was presented by the company itself rather than a creditor.  This is consistent with the steps taken by other companies within the OW Bunker group to seek Court protection.

Generally with a winding-up petition, if the petitioner is successful in obtaining a winding-up order, the petitioner will have its costs of the  proceedings. If, on the other hand, the petition is dismissed, then the petitioner has been  unsuccessful and it should pay the costs of the proceedings. We explore the Companies Court’s  treatment of costs in three recent decisions below.

From what Assets should a Petitioner have its Costs?

The Hong Kong court has held that, in determining whether it should exercise its jurisdiction to sanction a scheme of arrangement in respect of the debts of an insolvent foreign company, the factors to take into account include whether any of the debts are governed by Hong Kong law, such that they would be discharged by an order sanctioning the scheme, and whether sanctioning the scheme would foster comity.

Introduction

While most jurisdictions provide liquidators with wide investigative powers to locate and realise assets locally, the exercise of such powers becomes more complicated when the assets are situated overseas. As more and more businesses expand globally and corporate structures become equally more complex, the liquidators' task becomes more problematic in winding up such companies.