In brief
The Court of Final Appeal (CFA), in its recent judgment in Re Guy Kwok-Hung Lam [2023] HKCFA 9 (link to judgment), has ruled on the proper approach towards a bankruptcy petition where the underlying dispute of the petition debt is subject to an exclusive jurisdiction clause (EJC).
The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal (CFA) has confirmed a Court of Appeal finding that the court should respect the effect of an exclusive jurisdiction clause in bankruptcy proceedings, just as it does in ordinary civil actions.
If a debt arises from a contract that contains an exclusive jurisdiction clause (EJC) in favour of a foreign court, how will the Hong Kong court deal with a bankruptcy petition based on that debt? A highly anticipated judgment from Hong Kong’s highest court suggests that the bankruptcy petition will likely be dismissed, and that the foreign EJC will be given effect. But, as we will discuss below, the Court seems to leave other possibilities open, depending on the facts in a particular case.
In the latest ground breaking decision in Re Guy Kwok-hung Lam[2023] HKCFA 9, the Court of Final Appeal dismissed the appeal and laid to rest a long-standing debate on the vexing question concerning the impact, if any, exclusive jurisdiction clauses (EJCs) have on the presentation of bankruptcy petitions.
在终审法院最新颁布的 Re Guy Kwok-hung Lam[2023] HKCFA 9突破性裁决中，终审法院驳回了该案的上诉，并且在判词中就专属管辖权条款（EJC）是否对提交破产呈请有影响这一棘手问题作出裁决，平息了长期对于相关议题的争论。
简而言之，终审法院认可上诉法院大多数法官对于本案的观点，认为一般来说，如果呈请债务的基础争议受制于专属管辖权条款，除非有其他反面因素存在（例如债务人破产的风险将会影响第三方、债务人的呈请以几乎无意义的争议为基础，或者发生滥用法律程序的情况等）， 则法院应驳回该破产呈请。
终审法院在裁定中指出，当只有一名债权人提出破产呈请，而没有证据表明全体债权人都面临风险时，破产制度背后的公共政策因素的重要性则显着降低。
这一裁定反映了法院非常重视当事人自治的原则，以及当事人之间自由达成的协议。该判决将会对破产领域产生深远的影响，以及对处理清算及破产呈请中的仲裁条款产生涟漪效应。
The Hong Kong High Court has found that cryptocurrencies are property in a landmark case, further boosting the city’s virtual asset industry and its ambition to become the Asian crypto hub.
簡介
香港法院在香港將外國註冊公司清盤的法定司法管轄權，受到法院自設的限制所規限；該等限制被稱為法院行使上述司法管轄權之前所須符合的三大核心要求。
最近在Re Guoan International Ltd[2023] HKCU 939一案中，原訟法庭（「原訟庭」）需考慮是否將一間已被其註冊地點的法院清盤的外國註冊公司清盤。
案情
國安國際有限公司（「該公司」）的債權人Road Shine Developments Limited（「呈請人」）於2022年12月2日向香港法庭提出呈請，請求發出將該公司清盤的附屬命令。該公司於開曼群島註冊成立，於2022年2月28日被開曼群島大法院清盤，而袁子俊先生及Martin Trott先生於同日獲委任為其清盤人（「共同清盤人」）。反對呈請的債權人Chong Chin先生及Yao Sze Ling女士（統稱「反對債權人 」）基於兩個主要理由反對呈請：
Introduction
The statutory jurisdiction of Hong Kong Courts to wind up a foreign-incorporated company in Hong Kong is subject to self-imposed restraints that have been articulated as the “three core requirements” which must be satisfied before the court would exercise that jurisdiction.
In the recent case of Re Guoan International Ltd[2023] HKCU 939, the Court of First Instance (“CFI”) considered whether to wind up a foreign-incorporated company which has already been wound up by the court in its place of incorporation.
简介
香港法院在香港将外国注册公司清盘的法定司法管辖权，受到法院自设的限制所规限；该等限制被称为法院行使上述司法管辖权之前所须符合的三大核心要求。
最近在Re Guoan International Ltd[2023] HKCU 939一案中，原讼法庭（「原讼庭」）需考虑是否将一间已被其注册地点的法院清盘的外国注册公司清盘。
案情
国安国际有限公司（「该公司」）的债权人Road Shine Developments Limited（「呈请人」）于2022年12月2日向香港法庭提出呈请，请求发出将该公司清盘的附属命令。该公司于开曼群岛注册成立，于2022年2月28日被开曼群岛大法院清盘，而袁子俊先生及Martin Trott先生于同日获委任为其清盘人（「共同清盘人」）。反对呈请的债权人Chong Chin先生及Yao Sze Ling女士（统称「反对债权人 」）基于两个主要理由反对呈请：