簡介

最近在Re Ashit Sud (Debtor)[2022] 2 HKLRD 898一案中，法院說明了債權人在甚麼情況下拒絕債務人的和解建議會被視為不合理。案件審結時，法院對涉案公司（「該公司」）發出清盤令，以及對提供擔保的公司董事Ashit Sud先生（「該董事」）發出破產令。

背景

简介

最近在Re Ashit Sud (Debtor)[2022] 2 HKLRD 898一案中，法院说明了债权人在甚么情况下拒绝债务人的和解建议会被视为不合理。案件审结时，法院对涉案公司（「该公司」）发出清盘令，以及对提供担保的公司董事Ashit Sud先生（「该董事」）发出破产令。

背景

Introduction

In the recent case of Re Ashit Sud (Debtor)[2022] 2 HKLRD 898, the Court explained when a creditor would be considered acting unreasonable in rejecting a debtor’s settlement proposal. At the end of the hearing, the Court made a winding-up order against the Company in question and a bankruptcy order against the director of the Company, Mr Ashit Sud, who had provided guarantees.

Background

The Court of First Instance held in Re Up Energy Development Group Limited [2022] HKCFI 1329 that where the three core requirements for winding-up a foreign company under section 327(1) of the Companies (Winding up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap. 32) (CWUMPO) are satisfied, the mere fact that the foreign company has been ordered to be wound up by the court in its place of incorporation is not a ground for the Hong Kong court to decline the making of a winding up order.

A former listco

The 5th wave of COVID in Hong Kong has hit the business community hard. Many businesses have closed down whilst some companies and sole proprietors are considering winding up and bankruptcy as options to limit losses. For businesses that continue running, they face new challenges in dealing with employees as a result of various legislative measures taken by the government on vaccination and related requirements. 

Here is a practical and brief look at:

Historically, the common law has only recognised foreign insolvency proceedings commenced in the jurisdiction in which the company is incorporated. This may no longer be the case in Hong Kong. Going forward, a Hong Kong court will now recognise foreign insolvency proceedings in the jurisdiction of the company’s “centre of main interests” (COMI). Indeed, it will not be sufficient, nor will it be necessary, that the foreign insolvency process is conducted in a company’s place of incorporation.

债权人该如何策略追讨欠款及清盘行动

客户简报

2022 年 7 月 19 日

关于香港法院就境外公司清盘和承认境外清盘的权力的最新案例

如果呈请人会因提起法院的清盘程序而获益，而不是从颁布清盘令中获益，那么香港法院是否应该对境外公司行使清盘的司法管辖权？香港终审法院（终审法院）近期对这一问题作了阐明¹。

原讼法庭亦阐述了评估是否应承认境外清盘以及是否应向境外委任的清盘人提供协助的正确做法²。

The Court of Final Appeal (the CFA) has recently clarified whether a Hong Kong court should exercise its winding-up jurisdiction over foreign companies if the petitioner would derive benefit from the invocation of the court’s winding-up process but not from the making of a winding-up order [1].

On 6 June 2022, Mr Justice Harris sanctioned a Hong Kong scheme of arrangement for Rare Earth Magnesium Technology Group (the Company) in re Rare Earth Magnesium Technology Limited [2022] HKFCI 1686 (Rare Earth).

Hong Kong’s insolvency regime is based mainly on that of the United Kingdom. The legislation concerning corporate insolvency is contained largely in the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap 32) (“CWUMPO”) and the Companies (Winding-up) Rules. The corporate insolvency and winding up provisions in the legislation are broadly based on the Companies Act 1929 and the Companies Act 1948 of the UK. The last major amendment of those provisions was made in 2016. 

A guide to restructuring and insolvency issues and procedures in Hong Kong

Contents