The decision of the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands (‘the Cayman Court’) to grant common law recognition and assistance to liquidators appointed by the High Court of Hong Kong (‘the Hong Kong Court’) over an exempted Cayman Islands incorporated company – without parallel insolvency proceedings in Cayman – is likely to be welcomed widely by insolvency practitioners and lawyers involved in cross-border restructuring and insolvency in common law jurisdictions.

Reports last week of the significant increase in corporate insolvencies and voluntary liquidations in England and Wales for Q2 demonstrate the combined impact of government COVID-19 support being withdrawn, soaring energy and fuel costs, and weakening demand – and are being reflected in the nature of the instructions coming into our global jurisdictions from distressed companies across the globe.

The COVID-19 pandemic has placed immense strain across the whole of the economy and raises the issue of how company directors should balance their obligations to shareholders and creditors while ensuring that they protect themselves from any personal liability.

Companies and their directors in the following sectors of the economy face difficult decisions:

Hong Kong has not adopted into domestic legislation the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross Border Insolvency.

Unlike jurisdictions which have adopted the Model Law, e.g. the United Kingdom, an application to the Hong Kong Courts for recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings requires a balancing exercise of competing aims: assisting the foreign court conducting the main insolvency proceedings in achieving a universal distribution of assets, and ensuring that creditors seeking the Hong Kong Courts' assistance are treated fairly and equitably in enforcing their rights.

The current litigation landscape for professionals in Hong Kong is relatively benign: but is this the lull before the storm? Accurate records are kept of all actions commenced in the Hong Kong High Court, which deals with claims of over HK$1 million. The graph above shows the number of claims begun by writ each year over the last 15 years. This data covers all claims, not just those against professionals, but gives an indication of the general litigation trends.

Liquidators may often consider it necessary to bring proceedings on behalf of the insolvent company to seek to recover assets or obtain compensation on the company’s behalf. If that action fails, and the insolvent company does not have the funds to meet any costs order made against it, the liquidator is potentially personally exposed to paying those costs pursuant to a non-party costs order. This could operate harshly for liquidators. Every piece of litigation has a winner and a loser.

Given the nature of their businesses, shipping companies may be involved as respondents in arbitration proceedings in different jurisdictions. As arbitrations tend to be lengthy procedures, a claimant to such proceedings may want to explore whether there are any quicker routes they can take to recover their losses. One such option they might consider is bringing a winding up petition against the company.

Companies with certain specific connections to Hong Kong are increasingly likely to fall under Hong Kong jurisdiction and Hong Kong’s Companies Ordinance. Both creditors and debtors will benefit from the clarity provided by the recent judgment in the case Re Pioneer Iron and Steel Group. Hong Kong’s Companies Ordinance expressly provides for the possibility of petitioning to liquidate, or wind-up, companies incorporated outside of Hong Kong.

Judicial comments cast doubt on the ability to compromise US law-governed debt effectively based on Chapter 15 recognition alone.

The decision raises new questions about whether cross-border insolvency recognition and assistance between mainland China and Hong Kong will be a two-way street.